    [House Hearing, 118 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                 THE GOLDMAN ACT TURNS 10: HOLDING HAGUE
                 CONVENTION VIOLATORS ACCOUNTABLE AND
                 BRINGING ABDUCTED AMERICAN CHILDREN
                 HOME
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL
                  HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               September 10, 2024

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 118-128

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                   __________

                           U.S. GOVERNMET PUBLISHING OFFICE
    54-880 PDF                    WASHINGTON : 2026
    =======================================================================

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                       MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman

    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     GREGORY MEEKS, New York, Ranking
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina               Member
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            BRAD SHERMAN, California
    DARRELL ISSA, California             GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    ANN WAGNER, Missouri                 WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
    BRIAN MAST, Florida                  AMI BERA, California
    TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee             DINA TITUS, Nevada
    ANDY BARR, Kentucky                  TED LIEU, California
    RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
    YOUNG KIM, California                DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
    MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida        COLIN ALLRED, Texas
    BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan              ANDY KIM, New Jersey
    AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,       SARA JACOBS, California
        American Samoa                   KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
    FRENCH HILL, Arkansas                SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
    WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                    Florida
    JIM BAIRD, Indiana                   GREG STANTON, Arizona
    MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida               MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
    THOMAS KEAN, JR., New Jersey         JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
    MICHAEL LAWLER, New York             JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
    CORY MILLS, Florida                  SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
    RICH McCORMICK, Georgia              JIM COSTA, California
    NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               JASON CROW, Colorado
    JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
    KEITH SELF, Texas                    BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
    RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
    JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam

                    Brendan Shields, Majority Staff Director

                     Sajit Gandhi, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

     SUBCOMMITTEE ON GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL
                                 ORGANIZATIONS

                    CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman

    MARIA SALAZAR, Florida               SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania, Ranking
    AMATA RADEWAGEN, American Samoa          Member
    FRENCH HILL, Arkansas                AMI BERA, California
    RICH MCCORMICK, Georgia              SARA JACOBS, California
    JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 KATHY MANNING, North Carolina

                           C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------

                                REPRESENTATIVES

                                                                       Page
    Opening Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Christopher H. Smith..     1
    Opening Statement of Subcommittee Ranking Member Susan Wild......     4
    Opening Statement of Representative William Keating..............     5

                                   WITNESSES

    Statement of Robert Koepcke, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
      Japan, Korea, and Mongolia, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific
      Affairs, U.S. Department of State..............................     6
      Prepared Statement.............................................     9
    Statement of Michelle Bernier-Toth, Special Advisor for
      Children's Issues, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department
      of State.......................................................    13
      Prepared Statement.............................................    15
    Testimony of Mr. Jeffery Morehouse, Executive Director, Bring
      Abducted Children Home and Father of a Child Kidnapped to Japan    34
      Prepared Statement.............................................    40
    Testimony of Nafeesah Ali Ismail, Youth Ambassador, iStand
      Survivor Network Inc...........................................    46
      Prepared Statement.............................................    49
    Testimony of Melissa A. Kucinski, Esquire Attorney, Mediator,
      MKFL...........................................................    54
      Prepared Statement.............................................    56

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing Notice...................................................    68
    Hearing Minutes..................................................    70
    Hearing Attendance...............................................    71

                            Material for the Record

    Letter to PM Fumio Kashida from Rep. Smith.......................    72
    Written statement from Mr. Jay Sung, submitted by Rep. Smith.....    75
    Written statement from Mr. Michael Fallon, submitted by Rep.
      Smith..........................................................    77

                            Questions for the Record

    Questions submitted to Robert Koepcke, from Rep. Smith...........    81
    Questions submitted to Michelle Bernier-Toth from Rep. Smith.....    82
    Questions submitted to Jeffery Morehouse from Rep. McCormick.....    85
    Questions submitted to Melissa A. Kucinski from Rep. McCormick...    89
    Questions submitted to Michelle Bernier-Toth from Rep. McCormick.    94

         THE GOLDMAN ACT TURNS 10: HOLDING HAGUE CONVENTION VIOLATORS
            ACCOUNTABLE AND BRINGING ABDUCTED AMERICAN CHILDREN HOME

                                  ----------

                          Tuesday, September 10, 2024

                      House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights,
                       and International Organizations,
                                  Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:17 p.m., in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
    Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER SMITH

        Mr. Smith. The subcommittee will come to order. I welcome
    each and every one of you to this hearing this afternoon.
        The last month, as I think many of you know, marked the
    10th anniversary of the passage of the Sean and David Goldman
    International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act. That
    legislation took 5 years to get enacted into law and was based
    on the tenacious efforts of David Goldman to get his son back
    from Brazil. He did it with great class and strength and has
    been an inspiration to so many of us and also an inspiration
    for the law itself.
        And so many others, many of whom are here today, have
    played an outsized role in trying to ensure its effective
    implementation over the last 10 years. And so I want to thank
    all of them for being here today because it certainly does make
    a difference.
        We do know that the heartbreaking reality is that hundreds
    of American children are still abducted each and every year,
    illegally kidnapped by one of their parents to a foreign land.
    They are subject to what is child abuse with devastating
    psychological and even physical consequences for them and their
    families who have been left behind. We all know it is called
    parental alienation, but the term doesn't even begin to suggest
    the devastation that that child and the family and the left-
    behind parent do experience.
        Although the number of abducted children and cases have
    gone down, the rate of return actually has worsened. Fewer
    children are abducted; that is a good-news story. But fewer of
    those abducted children actually come home. The questions that
    remain are what is the U.S. Government doing to prevent
    international child parental child abduction, to hold Hague
    Convention violators accountable, and to bring American
    abducted children home?
        Today, we will hear from the U.S. Department of State
    officials responsible for implementing the Goldman Act, family
    law attorneys and Hague Convention experts, and a parent and a
    child who have personally experienced the heartbreaking pain of
    separation and abduction.
        The Goldman Act empowers the State Department to use the
    full range of diplomatic tools prescribed in the law to seek
    the return of abducted American children from a demarche or
    public condemnation to delay or cancellation of bilateral
    visits or an extradition request. Annual appropriations
    language also authorizes the Department to withhold bilateral
    assistance funds to the governments of countries that are not
    taking the appropriate steps to comply on child abduction
    issues.
        The State Department could do better. No matter who is in
    the White House, there seems to be, at times, a lag. It needs
    to use the tool, especially the sanctioning tool, which has
    been given to them, to you. Only once has that gone beyond a
    demarche. And I say that because I have offered other laws,
    including our law dealing with human trafficking, and even
    there, while we have a prescriptive list of very, very serious
    sanctions, we threaten and we don't do it. So, after a while,
    countries that are out of compliance take note of that, and
    they say, ``Well, it is more rhetorical, an embarrassment,
    rather than any kind of tangible impact.''
        So I admonish you, ask you, plead with you, to use those
    tools, those sanctions, obviously in a judicious way, which I
    know you can do, to hold these countries to account.
        The Hague Convention enforcement within the United States
    and some 80 foreign countries says that countries must
    expeditiously return abducted children ``wrongfully removed in
    violation of the left-behind parents' custody rights to their
    State of habitual residence.''
        The State Department's annual report named 16 foreign
    nations as having ``demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance''
    in 2023, Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Bulgaria, Ecuador, Egypt,
    Honduras, India, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Montenegro, Peru,
    Poland, Romania, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates. Six
    countries--Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, India, and Jordan and
    Peru--have not been complicit 10 years in a row. What a
    horrific record that is.
        Recent annual reports have removed Japan from the list of
    noncompliant countries. I do think that is a mistake. And Japan
    has made some legitimate progress, no doubt, in recent years
    passing legislation to strengthen enforcement of court-ordered
    returns. Just this spring, the Japanese Diet passed a law
    allowing for dual custody. And we've been pushing for that for
    10 years. When we first started this effort, I was shocked to
    learn that that is something that was not on their books of law
    and jurisprudence, and now it is.
        Yet in other ways, Japan must improve its disturbing track
    record. More than 500 children have been abducted to Japan
    since 1994. When Japan acceded to the Hague Convention in 2014,
    there were still more than 50 open pre-Hague cases of abduction
    to Japan. Today, all but four of those cases have been resolved
    or closed. What happened to the children? How many pre-Hague
    cases of parental child abduction were resolved, actually
    resolved, in a just and satisfactory way with the child's
    return to his or her left-behind family?
        It is very unclear. Indeed, it appears that most of these
    children simply aged out of the system. When a child turns 16,
    Hague Convention protocols and State Department reporting
    ceases to apply. In addition, left-behind parents report
    extreme difficulty in obtaining rights of access, especially in
    pre-Hague cases.
        What is the State Department doing to convey to foreign
    governments the importance of fulfilling their Hague
    obligations under international law? Are we trying to sign
    bilateral MOUs with non-Hague countries and with Hague
    countries that still have open abduction cases that precede
    that country's accession to the treaty?
        Another question I intend to raise deals with the limited
    exception to the Hague Convention's rule of expeditious return.
    The eighth meeting of the Special Commission of the Hague
    Convention has stated that ``While the exceptions derive from
    the consideration of the interests of the child, they do not
    turn the return proceedings into custody proceedings.'' Yet in
    some countries, untrained or unwilling judges relitigate
    custody rulings instead of strictly applying the Hague
    Convention.
        What has the Department, with respect and if you could
    answer this, done to address that problem? I am eager to hear
    from our very distinguished witnesses today, beginning with
    Robert Koepcke--Koepcke? I told you I would get it wrong--
    Deputy Assistant Secretary for Japan, Korea, and Mongolia, and
    Michelle Brenier-Toth, Special Advisor for Children's Issues.
        According to the annual report, finally, in 2023, there
    were 721 open active abduction cases involving 982 children, as
    well as 69 open access cases involving 92 children. Only 205
    abducted children out of the 982 were returned to the U.S. So
    we have to do better. Hundreds of cases tragically remain open,
    and a further 227 inquiries are made by families that did not
    complete their Hague application or provide related
    documentation, indicating that the true number of child
    abductions from the U.S. is likely far higher than we think.
        These children, of course, are gifts. They are precious not
    only to their families but also to our country, to the United
    States. And most children desire a relationship with both
    parents. They don't want to be forced to pick between them,
    which is exactly what an abducting parent does. These children
    have the potential to be a bridge, even, for friendship between
    the two countries. They serve as bonds and symbols of trust and
    friendship to both their countries of origin.
        So I would urge you--I have introduced a new bill called
    the Sean and David Goldman Child Act Amendments. It strengthens
    key aspects of the Goldman Act by requiring this aggregated
    data and increased transparency from the State Department in
    raising the age of the child from 16 to 18 and funding research
    into the lifelong trauma that studies and testimoneys suggest
    is caused by international parental child abduction.
        During our second panel, we will hear testimoneys from
    left-behind parents, one who founded one of the leading U.S.
    advocacy groups on this issue, a child survivor of
    international parental child abduction, and a family law Hague
    Convention expert to discuss the ongoing challenges. So I look
    forward to their very, very important testimony.
        Jeffery Morehouse, I would just point out thank you for
    being here, for being absolutely tenacious on behalf of your
    child. We have met maybe 50 times. You have testified before in
    a very, very civil and strong way. I wish Japan would take note
    of your appeal. It is so well-founded in justice and good law.
    But to date, they have not. So we make that request again to
    the Japanese Government.
        I would like to now yield to my good friend, Ms. Wild, for
    any opening.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER SUSAN WILD

        Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you to all of our witnesses and to the audience
    participants for appearing here today.
        When I first ran for office, I would often say to people
    that I was getting in this for my children and staying in it
    for yours. And as Members of Congress, and as public officials
    more broadly, I believe that we have a particular and special
    duty to do right by children and the most vulnerable members of
    our society.
        As a parent, the idea of being separated from my children
    when they were young would have been unimaginable. Heck, I
    could hardly deal with a workday's separation. And I don't mean
    to make light of it. I just can't even imagine extended
    separation from one's child. To all of those who have had to
    endure this unthinkable hardship, including the courageous
    advocates in this room, please know that we stand with you.
        I want to take a moment to recognize multiple constituents
    of mine whose children have been abducted to Egypt. While the
    circumstances differ across each case, they all highlight what
    I believe to be a lack of sufficient coordination between the
    State Department, the Department of Justice, and local and
    State law enforcement. I hope we can address the need for
    greater coordination during this hearing and that those of us
    in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, can work together
    to push for solutions.
        Advocating for children, including international parental
    child abduction cases, must be a cornerstone of our foreign
    policy. These cases are sensitive, complex, and difficult.
    Parents, legal guardians, and other American relatives depend
    on missions abroad to raise these cases with foreign government
    officials at the absolute highest appropriate levels and to
    ensure that the foreign government understands that the U.S.
    Government's concern for the welfare of its citizens overseas,
    particularly children, is paramount.
        Pursuant to the Goldman Act, the State Department continues
    to improve strategies for U.S. Government engagement with
    numerous countries on international parental child abduction.
    As Members of Congress, we must continue to ensure that we are
    providing a whole-of-government approach to combat and resolve
    abductions and that we are employing strategies that are
    tailor-made to be effective within the political, cultural, and
    institutional conditions of any given country.
        Civil society advocates, legal professionals, and other
    stakeholders play a key role in advising and informing Members
    of Congress and our diplomatic corps on the complexities of
    these cases. We must continue to strengthen cooperation to
    ensure countries that are in noncompliance with the Hague
    Convention are not only aware of these issues but act to change
    their laws to be in compliance with the convention. If
    countries refuse to do that, if they refuse to improve their
    laws in accordance with international standards, including as
    stipulated by the Goldman Act, then we have a duty to hold them
    accountable.
        I will always stand ready to work with anyone of either
    party on behalf of these children and their families both here
    at home and across the globe.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much for your very fine statement
    and your leadership on this issue.
        I would like to now recognize Mr. Keating.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM KEATING

        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Chair Smith and Ranking Member
    Wild, for holding this important hearing today.
        The issue of international child abduction demands our
    utmost attention, and hearings like this help bring the
    important light to bear to the Hague Convention violators and
    the victims of this horrific crime. Today, I would like to
    speak briefly on behalf of my constituent Michael Fallon, whose
    son was abducted from the United States last year to the
    Republic of Korea.
        For more than a year, Mike has been working tirelessly to
    secure the unlawful return of his son, who continues to be held
    unlawfully by his mother and her family. He secured favorable
    decisions from the courts in Massachusetts, and most recently,
    the Hague Convention Court in Korea ruled in his favor as well.
    While his case is still going through the legal process, the
    Republic of Korea has an obligation to expeditiously conclude
    the legal proceedings and will hopefully do so.
        With Mike's case in mind, in March, I wrote the Korean
    ambassador to the United States regarding Korea's multi-year
    noncompliance with the Hague Convention. Specifically, Korea
    remains unable to effectively enforce Hague Convention rulings,
    which are significant steps toward ensuring the safe return of
    abducted children.
        I believe this hearing helps make clear to the Korean
    authorities that the United States will do all it can in
    compliance with its Hague Convention obligations to ensure the
    safe return of all children. The Republic of Korea must do the
    same, and I am hopeful that the Korean Government will take the
    necessary steps to ensure their full compliance and
    significantly update their enforcement procedures.
        I want to thank Chair Smith and Ranking Member Wild again,
    as well as all our witnesses, for being here today. Your
    continued engagement with partner governments and
    communications with families and victims impacted by this
    devastating event has never been more important than it is
    today.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you.
        Ms. Manning? Oh. Okay. Thank you.
        I would like to now introduce our two witnesses and again
    thank them for being here and for their leadership, beginning
    with Robert Koepcke, who is the senior Foreign Service member
    in the U.S. Department of State, currently as Deputy Assistant
    Secretary for Korea, Japan, Mongolia in the Bureau of East
    Asian and Pacific Affairs.
        Previously, he served as Director of the Office of Mainland
    Southeast Asia, as well as the Director of the Executive
    Secretariat Staff in the Office of Secretary of State. He
    served as the U.S. Consul General in Okinawa, Japan, during
    2018 to 2021. As a Special Assistant to the Undersecretary for
    Economic Growth, Energy, and Environment, Robert developed an
    economic pillar of the Department's quadrennial Joint Strategic
    Plan 2007 to 2022, before which he was Deputy Economic Section
    Chief at the U.S. Embassy in Berlin, Germany.
        Robert was detailed to the National Security Council during
    2012 to 2013, where he was Director for Japan and Asia Regional
    Affairs. As Deputy Director of the Office of Economic Policy,
    or EAP, he played essential role in the U.S. host year of APEC
    2011. He served overseas tours in Beijing, Baghdad, Tokyo, and
    the American Institute in Taiwan, Taipei.
        He holds a master's degree from the London School of
    Economics and a bachelor's from Boston University. He enjoys
    introducing American culture through his love of playing and
    appreciating jazz music. He is married with two children and
    speaks Mandarin, Japanese, German, and Spanish. English will be
    preferred today, by the way.
        We will then hear from Ms. Michelle Bernier-Toth, who
    joined the State Department in 1987, served consular positions
    in Damascus, Syria; Doha, Qatar; and Abu Dhabi, UAE. She also
    served in the Foreign Service positions in Bureaus of Near East
    Affairs and Consular Affairs, as well as the Foreign Service
    Institute, before converting to civil service in 1903.
        As a civil service officer, Michelle was the Deputy
    Director in the Office of Children's Issues, as Director of the
    Office of American Citizen Services and Crisis Management, and
    as Managing Director of the Overseas Citizens Services.
        In December 2019, she was named as the Special Advisor for
    Children's Issues in the Bureau of Consular Affairs. She
    graduated from Yale University in 1982 with a bachelor's of art
    in Near Eastern languages and literature, and has a master's in
    Arab studies from Georgetown University. She has three adult
    children of whom she is very, very proud.
        I would like to now yield to you, Robert.

                       STATEMENT OF ROBERT KOEPCKE

        Mr. Koepcke. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Wild, and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to speak today about the Department's efforts on
    international parental child abduction as it relates to Japan
    and the Republic of Korea. I appreciate the work you've done
    over many years to reunite families, and I truly appreciate the
    efforts of the many parents in the audience today to advocate
    for this issue on a global scale.
        As Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of East Asian
    and Pacific Affairs, I am deeply committed to protecting U.S.
    citizens in Japan and the ROK and to promoting the interests of
    the American people in the Indo-Pacific region. I want to
    assure you that international parental child abduction is an
    important part of our broader foreign policy in the Bureau of
    East Asian and Pacific Affairs.
        Together with our consular colleagues, our bureau has
    pursued a strategy of persistent diplomatic efforts, legal
    collaboration, and public awareness to prevent future
    abductions and ensure the expeditious return of abducted
    children. We have consistently advocated on behalf of U.S.
    citizens in bilateral engagements, including on international
    parental child abduction cases, and will continue to do so at
    the highest levels. We are dedicated to bringing abducted
    children home and preventing future cases.
        Over the last 4 years, we have made progress in Japan and
    the Republic of Korea. After Japan ratified the Hague
    Convention in 2014, it lacked strong enforcement mechanisms.
    Intensive bilateral engagement convinced Japan to enact new
    legislation in 2020 that strengthened its ability to enforce
    convention court orders. Since 2021, Japan has successfully
    enforced returns of children in every U.S. Hague case in which
    the Japanese courts ordered one.
        With regard to pre-Hague cases in Japan, the State
    Department raises them regularly and at senior levels. In 2020,
    our governments undertook a comprehensive review of pre-Hague
    cases and committed to hold regular consultations on them.
    Almost half of the pre-Hague cases that resulted in the
    successful return or contact involved voluntary agreements
    reached through mediation and open dialog. So we have
    emphasized the importance of mediation as well as prevention.
        Most recently, Japan's Diet revised its civil code on May
    17 to allow divorced parents the option of joint parental
    authority. This will take effect in 2026 and aligns Japan with
    most countries around the world. We will closely track the
    precedents set by Japanese judges and how it will affect left-
    behind parents on pre-Hague cases. We have also begun another
    comprehensive review of pre-Hague cases to show our commitment
    to successful returns.
        With regard to the Republic of Korea, we cited them as
    noncompliant in 2022, 2023, and 2024 for failure to enforce
    return orders. Under the Korean legal system, international
    parental child abduction cases are not criminal cases but civil
    cases. The enforcement officers, who are called bailiffs, are
    semi-independent entities and not subject to direct orders from
    the Korean Supreme Court or the Korean Central Authority.
    Enforcement is reliant on these bailiffs, who have a great deal
    of autonomy in their decisionmaking and do not answer directly
    to judges as court officers do in the United States.
        U.S. officials in Washington and Seoul have persistently
    raised these enforcement issues at the highest levels. As a
    result of our advocacy, the ROK established an international
    task force in June 2023. The Supreme Court of Korea
    subsequently implemented new guidance in April 2024 aimed at
    aligning bailiffs with their Hague enforcement
    responsibilities. Since then, the ROK has enforced two court-
    ordered returns, including one that was pending for multiple
    years.
        Even with this new guidance, we continue to have frank
    discussions with the Korean Central Authority and the ROK
    Government to ensure bailiffs receive appropriate training to
    address the independence that bailiffs have under the Korean
    legal system and to grant the police more tools to locate an
    abducted child.
        In conclusion, we have made significant strides in our
    bilateral efforts with both Japan and the ROK, but there is
    still more work to be done. Addressing international parental
    child abduction requires a concerted effort of all
    stakeholders, including governments, legal authorities, and
    civil society. We are committed to leading these efforts and
    ensuring that every child is returned home safely and swiftly.
        I look forward to working with this esteemed committee,
    anti-international parental child abduction advocates, and our
    international partners to uphold the rights and well-being of
    children around the world. Thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today, and I am prepared to answer any questions you
    may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Koepcke follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much for your testimony.
        I would like to now recognize Ms. Bernier-Toth for her
    testimony.

                   STATEMENT OF MICHELLE BERNIER-TOTH

        Ms. Bernier-Toth. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Wild,
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you, as well,
    for the invitation to speak about our work on an important
    issue that is important to all of us, that of international
    parental child abductions. I have submitted a written statement
    to the subcommittee, which I ask to be included in the record.
        Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. Thank you.
        International parental child abduction hurts children. It
    hurts the left-behind parents. It hurts extended families,
    friends, communities. We know this from the lived experience of
    adults who were abducted as children. We know this from the
    parents, the grandparents, and the families of abducted
    children who face what often feel like insurmountable
    challenges in trying to protect their children.
        That is why I take my responsibilities as Special Advisor
    for Children's Issues so seriously. As an advocate for
    vulnerable children, I join my colleagues in seeking to resolve
    individual cases of international parental child abduction and
    to promote the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention efficient
    operation as an important framework for resolving and
    preventing international parental child abduction.
        In the past year, my colleagues in the Office of Children's
    Issues and I have traveled extensively to raise awareness of
    this issue and promote more effective responses by treaty and
    non-treaty partners. Since appearing before you last May, I
    have traveled to Lebanon, Jordan, Belize, India, Peru,
    Argentina, and most recently, Honduras.
        In Lebanon, I participated in a conference on international
    parental child abductions that included government officials,
    attorneys and judges, social workers, non-governmental
    organization representatives, and foreign embassy officers, and
    which has led to followup meetings and dialog among
    stakeholders.
        In India, I met with judges, attorneys, and Indian
    officials in the lead-up to our annual consular dialog. In
    Argentina, I pressed senior officials in the Foreign Ministry,
    civil society leaders, and leadership within the Argentine
    Congress on the need for Argentina to expedite the resolution
    of Hague abduction cases. I have met virtually and in person
    with key officials from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the UAE.
        In October 2023, I led the U.S. delegation to the eighth
    Special Commission meeting on the 1980 Hague Abduction
    Convention. A key topic of discussion at the Special Commission
    was the delay in resolving cases in many countries due to the
    factors we identify in our annual report to Congress: problems
    locating children, administrative delays and central
    authorities, slow or drawn-out judicial processes, or problems
    enforcing return orders. These are some of the issues that we
    raise when we meet with foreign officials.
        We have seen some progress on key fronts. In April of this
    year, the Korean Supreme Court did issue the guidance to give
    law enforcement officers more authority to carry out return
    orders. My colleague from the East Asia Pacific Bureau has
    talked about that.
        We have started regular meetings with the Indian Government
    officials to discuss issues of mutual concern, including
    international parental child abduction and to encourage
    cooperation on resolving existing cases and preventing new
    ones.
        The Sean and David Goldman Act called on us to do more with
    our military colleagues. In the past year, the Office of
    Children's Issues has conducted outreach to and training for
    military attorneys and community officers, who are often the
    first to recognize when a military family is struggling and an
    abduction is possible.
        The act also called for regular interagency meetings to
    coordinate preventive efforts. In the past year, we have held
    two such meetings, which foster even closer collaboration
    between interagency partners.
        The Prevent Abduction program carried out with the
    Department of Homeland Security is one of the few and best ways
    we have to stop children from being abducted from the United
    States. In the past year, our prevention branch has spoken to
    thousands of concerned parents, attorneys, and courts to assist
    them with preventing a child being removed overseas, sometimes
    with just hours to act.
        We continue to build on our successes and our work across
    the interagency to establish a robust and comprehensive
    prevention program that is flexible and responsive. We know
    that any forward progress is still too slow for the children
    and parents affected by international parental child abduction.
    Every day matters, and too many cases stretch out for years. I
    stress this point in my meetings with foreign officials to
    emphasize the human cost of delays that could have been
    prevented.
        I applaud the efforts of left-behind parents to raise
    awareness of the pain they and their children suffer when their
    child is abducted. Our annual report to Congress under the Sean
    and David Goldman Act is part of a year-round activity that
    includes the development of country-specific action plans,
    collection and assessment of data, consultations with
    colleagues across the Department, and ultimately preparation of
    the report itself before the cycle repeats.
        Following a release of the report, we ask our embassies in
    those countries that have been cited for demonstrating a
    pattern of noncompliance to notify their host governments,
    explain the basis for the citation, and press for systemic
    change. I often follow that meeting with senior diplomats in
    Washington and always emphasize that this is an issue Congress
    cares about.
        I hope that as Members of Congress travel and interact with
    foreign government counterparts, they make the same points. It
    is important that we work together on behalf of children and
    families. They are our shared constituents.
        Thank you again for all you do on behalf of these
    vulnerable children and for your support for our efforts. I
    look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Bernier-Toth follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much for your leadership. And
    just a couple of questions to start off with.
        When the Prime Minister of Japan was visiting and obviously
    was so well received by the Congress and by the President, when
    he had his after-speech meeting over in the Rayburn room, I
    gave him a letter--talked to him briefly, but gave him a letter
    on behalf of the left-behind parents in Japan, those who were
    left out when the Hague was signed and ratified.
        My concern has always been, and it was, as--what a cruelty
    to those families to say, ``Now we are going to get it right,
    or at least get on the path to getting it right,'' but
    meanwhile, all of these other families, like Jeffrey, who is
    here, Paul Toland, and so many others, are just left out, not
    being able to see their children and certainly not having the
    reunification that is warranted by the law and by, really,
    universal justice.
        I gave them the letter. I'm going to put the letter in the
    record. I will give you a copy again. We still haven't heard
    back. And it is troubling in the extreme, with all the
    diplomatic niceties that he was afforded--and he was very well
    received, and I deeply respect him as well--that when a very
    serious set of issues are raised about very real people who are
    being treated so cruelly, I mean, it just--they rejoiced when
    the Hague was signed into law, but it was a very bitter
    rejoicing because they knew they were left out, grandfathered
    out rather than in.
        So I would ask you, if you could, with the Prime Minister,
    with the Japanese Government, to reiterate an effort, reignite
    that effort to get these children home. It baffles my mind.
    Justice delayed is justice denied. There is no statute of
    limitations on justice, and certainly, this injustice and the
    cruelty of it is just mind-boggling.
        As my ranking member said, she has no idea how she would
    handle it. I have no idea how I would handle it, as a father of
    four and grandfather of eight, if such a thing were to happen.
    It was just--it is mind-boggling not knowing--even when the
    nuclear problem occurs, many of our left-behind families were
    trying to find out, was their child in any way injured or put
    at risk during that crisis? And it was crickets, nothing. And I
    just find it appalling.
        So I would put this letter in the record, but I would like
    to convey to you a copy again and see if you could at least get
    an answer. My hope--the answer will be, ``Hey, let's just do
    this. I care about the abductions that have occurred big time.
    I was on Congressman Honda's bill of the abductions that were
    going to North Korea.''
        Well, abductions is a two-way street. We don't want any
    abductions. And so I appeal to you to take that back. I do hope
    you can put even more benign pressure on that government to do
    more now with these cases. They can't be forgotten anymore.
        Second, I wanted to ask you with regards to the demarche--
    and we have had demarches, and when I wrote the law, I
    patterned it after both the International Religious Freedom Act
    and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. The idea
    was that you have a very real sanction, like a sword of
    Damocles hanging over a country for noncompliance. But we know
    that when it is not used, the country and the bureaucrats in
    each respective country say, ``We can weather a little
    criticism, but there is nothing that is going to follow.''
        When I was fighting for David Goldman so very, very hard,
    one of the things that I raised on my many trips was that we
    are going to look economically to taking away GSP, which you
    know you need very badly in Brazil. And we were serious about
    denying them the continuance of Generalized System of
    Preferences for their products. All of a sudden, they are all
    ayes. ``Okay. What do we gotta do?'' Please. You have got
    economic pressure and other pressure just staring us in the
    face. It is why we wrote it into the law. Ten years later, blow
    off the dust.
        And I appeal to you again to start demarching--no. Start
    sanctioning countries, and we will see results across the board
    because they will say, ``Oh, the Americans mean business now.
    They are not bluffing.'' And I do think, despite--when you are
    interlocutors, you probably talk to a lot of very good people
    who care deeply. But they are not making the decision,
    necessarily, in country X, Y, or Z. Somebody else is just
    saying, ``Just talk. Reduce us on things.'' But again, some of
    these left-behind parents that go on for decades, they need a
    resolution.
        So I would ask you, if you could, will you be looking to
    use the sanctions prescribed in the law going forward?
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. Thank you, Congressman Smith.
        Mr. Smith. Yes.
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. Each year, the Office of Children's
    Issues--the country officers, the branch chiefs, the Division
    Chief--me--sit down with our colleagues from the regional
    bureaus, with our colleagues at embassies and consulates
    abroad, and we review the list of tools in the Goldman Act to
    see which ones are going to be effective in trying to address
    some of the challenges we've seen in individual countries.
        I can assure you that we look at the entire list and then
    beyond that, because in addition to what is in the law, we have
    other tools at our disposal, not just diplomatic tools, but
    training and things that raise awareness of the importance of
    implementing the Hague Convention or finding solutions to
    individual cases of international parental child abduction. So
    we do look at the entire list each and every year.
        Mr. Smith. But I would ask and I would appeal to you--you
    have got a very serious sanction--sanctions--that you could
    impose. And I believe with all my heart, soul, and my--you
    know, not only was I inspired by the trafficking law, which I
    wrote, but that was inspired by our civil rights law. Without
    sanctions capability, the schools wouldn't have complied the
    way they do and have to.
        Sanctions do grab the attention. And you have countries
    like Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, India, Jordan, and Peru
    noncompliant every year since 2015. I mean, I met with Modi
    personally on behalf of a case out in New Jersey. A young woman
    who had her two children abducted was treated like trash by her
    now separated husband. He stole from her. The police had
    reports showing that he was a thief in addition to being an
    abductor.
        She went over there, and nothing. No help. She was even at
    risk of court action for trying to see her children. And she
    has testified here a few times as well. You couldn't find a
    nicer, more civil, more loving mother who has been absolutely
    cruelly denied her children. And I brought her to meet with
    Modi and appealed to him, and nothing happened there either.
    After a while, you say these jobs are worthless if you're not
    willing to help people who are at risk and vulnerable.
        And so India, I mean, one of our great trading partners,
    allies--we need to do more there as well.
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. Thank you. And I would agree that India
    is definitely on one of my--top of my list of countries that I
    have been working on over the past year.
        Mr. Smith. Great. And I have asked before. I will ask one
    more time, then yield to my friend, Ms. Wild. Have we tried an
    MOU with India?
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. We have raised that, but there has been
    no interest on the side of the Indian Government. I think I
    would note, though, that memorandum of understandings can be
    helpful in certain instances. For example, we have one that is
    more operational with Saudi Arabia, which commits both of us to
    meet on a regular basis to discuss issues. That has been
    carried out, and that goes on.
        Other MOUs which have stressed the importance of
    facilitating parental access to their children, even as the
    parents seek the return of their child--I would say that is a
    hit or miss in terms of how we have been able to really use
    those effectively with the countries involved.
        So we have to look at it, but we do hold it out as
    something we will consider.
        Mr. Smith. I would just say--Mr. Koepcke, you might want to
    answer this as well. We sanction India; we will get their
    attention. I know there will be other people in the Department,
    there will be bureau heads, that will say, ``Oh, don't mess up
    the relationship.'' Friends don't let friends commit human
    rights abuses, and these are against American children and
    American parents.
        And with impunity, they are telling us to go take a long
    walk on a short pier. They don't care. And having had these
    conversations with people directly, including Modi, he needs to
    step up, as does his government, the government. So please use
    the sanctions. You sanction; you will get results. I guarantee
    it.
        Mr. Koepcke. Yes. Thank you for that, Chairman. The process
    that Michelle described in terms of working together with the
    regional bureaus and the Bureau of Consular Affairs is
    something that we engage in on an annual basis, and we will
    continue to do so to make sure we are using the tools that are
    going to be the most effective for getting progress on this
    important set of issues.
        For both Japan and Korea, these issues--they are different
    circumstances, but they remain an important part of our
    bilateral agenda with both countries. We have been raising it
    at senior levels and kind of all the way up and down our
    system, and we will continue to do so.
        I have had recent active conversations with my own
    counterpart in Japan on this topic, and you mentioned the
    letter to the Prime Minister and not receiving a response. I
    will followup on that with him because, as I said, we are
    actively discussing this issue as we continue to see progress.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you.
        Ms. Wild?
        Ms. Wild. Okay. Ms. Bernier-Toth, as I mentioned in my
    remarks, I have constituents whose children have been abducted
    to Egypt by one of the parents over the past several years. I
    know that Egypt is not a signatory to the Hague Abduction
    Convention, and that obviously is a significant factor.
        And I know that you have worked aggressively to press your
    Egyptian counterparts on this issue, and I would just encourage
    you to please continue to do that. And please let us know,
    either my office or this subcommittee, of anything else that
    you think we can do here in Congress to help you in that
    effort.
        One of the problems that we have seen in the cases from my
    district and cases across the country is the reluctance of U.S.
    attorneys to move forward with charges against the abducting
    parent because a court order was not in place at the time the
    children were abducted, which is problematic, of course,
    because an abduction could very well be planned before there is
    even any known friction, legal experience going on, or anything
    else.
        And I understand the position of the DOJ and U.S.
    attorneys, but I also think that that has really hindered some
    of our progress in this area. And it obviously hinders our
    ability to press the foreign governments that are in question.
    And for that matter, it prevents us from being able to ensure
    that the parent, the abducting parent, is stopped when they
    travel elsewhere to third countries or potentially even back
    here to the United States.
        So I am not going to ask you to make comment on the
    decisions within DOJ, but I would like to ask you how a more
    proactive and perhaps supportive approach by DOJ might provide
    the State Department with some additional authority. And I am
    talking about DOJ and law enforcement generally. And do you see
    areas where coordination between State, DOJ, and law
    enforcement could be strengthened?
        I think, personally, there is always room for more
    coordination and cooperation no matter what the issue is. I am
    all about cooperation. I think one of the things we see is
    that, often, local law enforcement is not aware that there is
    no waiting period, if a child is reported missing, that they
    can enter that child's name into the----
        (Simultaneous speaking.)
        Ms. Wild. And when you say local, you mean local as in
    city, state----
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. City, State, local. Yes.
        Ms. Wild. Okay.
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. And so that is an area where I think
    greater awareness is needed. We work with the law enforcement
    authorities on our prevention working group. We have
    representation there. But again, there is always more that we
    could do. I totally agree.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you.
        Do you have any comment on that, sir, about the question I
    just asked about coordination between State and DOJ and local
    law enforcement and what could be done to improve it?
        Mr. Koepcke. I don't, no. I will just note that, in that
    regard, our consular sections in both our embassies in Seoul
    and Tokyo work on these issues very closely in coordination
    with the Bureau of Consular Affairs. And that is where that
    kind of connective piece would play out.
        Ms. Wild. And so, moving on to the challenges with South
    Korea, Mr. Koepcke, the Republic of Korea was named in the 2024
    International Child Abduction Report as noncompliant with the
    Hague Convention despite it being enforced between the United
    States and Korea since 2013.
        A State Department report to Congress noted that ROK,
    Republic of Korea, law enforcement authorities regularly failed
    to enforce return orders and abduction cases. As a result of
    this failure, 29 percent of requests for the return of abducted
    children underremained unresolved for more than 12 months.
        Do you have any update on Korea's response to the report
    thus far and what kind of commitments, if any, have been made
    to address those findings? And again, that was a report of
    2024, just this year. So I wouldn't necessarily have read of
    any improvements in the response, but perhaps you know of some.
        Mr. Koepcke. Yes. Thank you for that question. I think it
    is a part of the agenda when we are speaking with Korean
    counterparts, Korean Government counterparts, on this. As I
    mentioned, our post is very much engaged on this.
        We have outreached to the Korean Government seeking
    progress in light of the noncompliance finding, and
    consistently, including from senior officials, including from
    our technical experts in our consular section as well. I will
    continue to work with them on that and make sure that they
    understand where we are coming from on this.
        As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there are challenges
    within the legal system. Those are challenges that we have
    worked with them on to try to find some solutions. And they did
    push out new guidelines to local authorities engaging on these
    things. It is not enough, but I think it is clear that we have
    the channels with the government that we need to have, that we
    can have these conversations and see progress. It clearly
    hasn't been enough, and we will continue to work on that.
        Ms. Wild. I appreciate that. One thought that I have,
    Chairman Smith--congressional delegations, known as CODELs,
    Members of Congress, travel frequently abroad, often to the
    countries that we are talking about today and other countries
    that are cited in the report on child abduction.
        And it seems to me that we have a duty, because we are
    often in a position when we are on those trips, to be in
    behind-closed-door meetings with the highest-level officials,
    often discussing issues that we care deeply about, sometimes
    uncomfortable issues. But I can tell you that I have never
    been--now, granted, I have never been on a CODEL to Japan or
    Korea, but I have never heard this issue raised.
        And it seems to me that one of the things that we might
    want to talk about, Chairman Smith, is that every CODEL that is
    leaving from Washington to go to a foreign country should be
    educated and advised by our subcommittee or someone else on the
    instances of child abduction, the lack of any response from
    that country, and that members of the CODEL should be
    absolutely encouraged to raise this over and over again
    because, as I said, we often are raising difficult, delicate
    issues with countries that are our allies, but there are some
    issues that we care deeply about. But it seems to me that this
    one is--absolutely should be front and center. So thank you.
        With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
        I would like to now yield to Ms. Radewagen. And thank you
    for your leadership.
        Ms. Radewagen. Mr. Koepcke, Mr. Michael Fallon is another
    left-behind American parent whose son was abducted to South
    Korea last summer. While Korean courts have ruled in his favor,
    the taking parent has hidden his son and has slowed down
    judicial proceedings through multiple appeals.
        What has the Department done and what is it doing today to
    bring Mr. Fallon's son home? And have you raised his case in
    engagements with Republic of Korea counterparts?
        Mr. Koepcke. Thank you for that question. I think I am
    going to turn to my Consular Affairs colleague for more
    details. It is my understanding we don't typically get into
    specific cases. There are privacy considerations and other
    considerations.
        But what I can say is that all of the cases that come to
    our attention are brought through our Consular Affairs Bureau
    to our consular section at our embassy in Seoul. So they are
    tracking these and will continue to work on them. And then, as
    we do, as I described, the broader legal framework at work and
    some of the reforms that have to happen there, including
    possibly legal remedies, are something that we are continuing
    to engage with them on regularly.
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. I would just add that this and other
    cases involving the importance of enforcing the return order
    are of a high priority to our--not just to our team in Seoul,
    but to the Office of Children's Issues and, of course, the East
    Asia Pacific Bureau. This is an issue that we have raised
    regularly with the Government of Korea.
        I would also note that the Government of Korea has
    definitely taken note of our annual report. I spoke with them
    soon after it was released because they had questions about
    that. So the report itself is a useful tool.
        Ms. Radewagen. Ms. Bernier-Toth, the eighth meeting of the
    Special Commission on the Hague Convention also stated that
    while the exceptions derive from a consideration of the
    interests of the child, they do not turn the return proceedings
    into custody proceedings.
        Has the Department observed instances of foreign courts
    relitigating custody issues instead of strictly making the
    Hague Convention ruling? If so, where, and what has been done
    to address this problem?
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. Thank you for that question. That is much
    of what I do. We often see situations where a family law judge
    is unfamiliar with their roles and responsibilities under the
    Hague Convention and, unless advised otherwise, treats the case
    as a custody case and relitigates those custody issues, which
    is not appropriate.
        And so we have emphasized the importance of judicial
    training and raising awareness among local judges in many
    countries of their roles and responsibilities under the
    convention. And we have worked in countries such as, for
    example, Brazil and Argentina, where I was engaged in this, to
    work with their Hague network judges to make sure that they are
    reaching out and they are providing guidance to their
    counterparts across the country so that they are better
    informed.
        We have also supported and participated in judicial
    training for foreign judges overseas to make sure that they
    know what their responsibilities are. It is a really important
    part of what we are doing. It is not just do they understand
    the actual role and responsibility, but are they acting
    expeditiously? Is the legal system treating these cases with
    priority so that they are moved to the top of the queue and so
    that the child can be returned promptly?
        Ms. Radewagen. I am not sure what the time is. Clock
    doesn't seem to be working. But I yield back the balance of my
    time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Manning?
        Ms. Manning. It can be very dangerous if the clocks are not
    working.
        Thank you, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Wild, for
    bringing this important hearing. And I want to thank our
    witnesses for your service.
        Many years ago, I had a law partner who was able to use the
    Hague Convention to get an abducted child back home, returned
    to this country, for her client. So I know the process can work
    when dealing with a compliant country to resolve this kind of a
    tragic situation. But sadly, not all cases work out that way.
        Ms. Bernier-Toth, can you share more about what happens
    when State is made aware of a potential child abduction case,
    and are there things that we can do, we in Congress can do, to
    be helpful?
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. Thank you for that. Typically, it starts
    when a parent or somebody on their behalf contacts the Office
    of Children's Issues to report that their child has been
    abducted to a Hague or a non-Hague country.
        The country officer in the Office of Children's Issues who
    is responsible for that particular country will talk to the
    parent and explain what their potential options are, whether it
    is a Hague Convention case, whether it's a criminal case,
    because it is up to the parent, ultimately, to decide what they
    choose to do. It is their child, and they are best placed to
    decide what their path is.
        Should they seek return of the child under the Hague, the
    Office of Children's Issues will facilitate and assist them in
    filing the application with the foreign central authority. They
    can also go directly to the foreign central authority, but that
    way we don't have as much visibility on the case.
        From then on, it is just tracking the case there, making
    sure that it is being handled as appropriately as it can be. In
    non-Hague cases, obviously, that is more complex because the
    options for the parent are more limited, and often, it is a
    very difficult process of navigating the local legal system in
    the foreign country. So I hope that answers your question.
        Ms. Manning. It does. And are there any commonalities among
    cases that are successful that you can share with us? And does
    congressional involvement at any particular level seem to be
    productive in resolving these cases?
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. That is a very good question. I think
    what you see--as you noted, when it works, it works well
    because it creates that bridge between legal systems, and it
    looks at habitual residence and not other custody issues.
        And so we do have partners where the convention works. And
    I think, in that case, it then also serves as a preventive
    measure because if a parent knows that if they abducted their
    child, the child will be returned to the habitual residence,
    then they don't, hopefully, abduct their child in the first
    place.
        Congress plays an important role. I think this was
    mentioned before. As CODELs go out, it is really helpful for
    the host government to understand that this is an all-of-
    government issue. This is something that Congress cares about,
    that the State Department cares about, that other agencies care
    about, because ultimately, it is about the children. And we
    have a responsibility to protect them.
        Ms. Manning. Well, I appreciate my colleague Representative
    Wild raising that issue because there are many of us who go on
    CODELs to Japan and to Korea. So, if those issues--I am glad to
    hear that Japan is doing better, but with regard to Korea,
    there are opportunities for us to raise those issues if we are
    continually made aware that there are problems in a particular
    country we are visiting.
        Do you find that there seems to be any kind of a cultural
    bias in returning, for example, a child to the father when the
    abducting parent has been the mother or vice versa? And if so,
    how can those cultural biases be overcome?
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. So I would say that that is sort of
    country-specific and cultural-specific. Sometimes it is biases
    about returning a child to the father. Sometimes it is about
    returning the child to the mother. Again, our point when we
    work on these cases with the parent is that it is about the
    child.
        And we know, as Congressman Smith said, separating a child
    from one of the parents by the unilateral actions of another
    parent is very traumatizing for the child. And I think that is
    where we try to focus and make that point because, ultimately,
    it is not about culture; it is about the child and the child's
    welfare and best interests.
        Ms. Manning. So you mentioned, I think, during your remarks
    that there are sometimes indications that can be spotted of
    likely abduction with a military family. Can you talk a little
    bit about that and what can be done to be more aware of that
    situation?
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. This is a major effort that we are
    undertaking, is to work, again, with the military officers, the
    community officers, to help them to raise their awareness of
    what some of the red flags might be so that they can try to
    prevent and counsel their clients against taking actions which,
    in the end, will only be detrimental to the child.
        So there is an outreach program. There is a training
    program. We send teams out a couple of times a year to
    countries where we have significant numbers of U.S. military.
    We have had some success. Not only have they gone to Korea and
    Japan and Italy, but when they have done that kind of training,
    they have actually then used virtual platforms to bring other
    bases and other officers from other countries in as well. So it
    is a really major effort on our part.
        Ms. Manning. Let me ask one final question because I also
    don't know whether my time has run out. But with regard to the
    2024 annual report and also the letter included in our
    materials from Secretary Blinken, it is clear that Poland and
    Montenegro have just been added to the list. Can you tell us
    what happened, and are there things we can do to be helpful
    with those two countries?
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. I don't have the specifics on that in
    front of me, but I can tell you what happens is, as part of the
    annual review and the assessment of countries--this is a
    yearlong process. So we look at what is happening in that
    country. We evaluate the country's performance against the
    criteria laid out in the Goldman Act and make a decision as to
    whether we should cite them or not.
        This is something that is done in collaboration with our
    regional bureau with our embassy abroad. But again, it is based
    on the criteria that are laid out in the Goldman Act in terms
    of the numbers, in terms of the central authority operations,
    judicial processes, and things like that. Each country is going
    to be rated on those criteria.
        Ms. Manning. Thank you again for all your hard work. I know
    these are heartbreaking situations for families, and I am sure
    that the help you provide is very much appreciated.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Smith. Dr. McCormick.
        Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. International parental
    child abduction. It is a terrible thing. Since 1994 over 30,000
    children have been abducted and taken abroad by one of their
    parents without the consent of the other.
        As a father, I can't fathom the terrible feeling of
    separation and heartbreak that those parents endure. I would
    feel if my children were abducted, I can only imagine what they
    are going through.
        I applaud the work of Chairman Smith and what he has done
    historically in passing the Goldman Act 10 years ago and his
    continued work to secure the child's future and to protect them
    from this grievous occurrence.
        Ms. Bernier-Toth, as you mention in your testimony,
    prevention is the best method of combating international
    parental child abduction. The Goldman Act created the
    children's passport issuance alert program to notify the
    concerned parent if someone attempts to get their child a
    passport without their knowledge.
        You also mentioned, just in this hearing as I have been
    listening, that this is about the child. How many single
    parents have brought children across the southern border in
    this last 4 years?
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. I am sorry, sir. I don't have that
    number.
        Mr. McCormick. I would say it is tens of thousands, just
    based on a thumbnail approach. How many of them had passports?
    You probably don't know.
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. I don't know.
        Mr. McCormick. Got you. When we used to test to see if
    children were related to their parents as they came across the
    southern border, we had about an 8 to 9 percent failure rate is
    my understanding. We stopped testing.
        So my question is, if this is about children, like you
    said, which I believe that, too, it is about the child, if we
    don't know how many kids--by the way we have tens of thousands
    of kids who came across the border by themselves, and by the
    way we lost them--we don't know where they are right now under
    the government charges. But it is about children. We don't know
    where those tens of thousands of children who came over here by
    themselves are.
        We don't know if those children were kidnapped by their
    single parents who brought the children across because we don't
    know, and we didn't test. And finally, we don't even know if
    those kids being brought by that one person are genetically
    related to that person they are bringing across.
        So not only do we not have accountability for the children
    who came here by themselves, tens of thousands lost, we don't
    know if that child has been kidnapped by their single parent
    that's coming across the border with those kids. We also don't
    even know if they are related to that child, and they are
    kidnapped from both parents. So how are we making this about
    the child? How do we have accountability in our own country let
    alone foreign countries?
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. Sir, I really can't speak to issues that
    are related to the Department of Homeland Security and its
    responsibility for the southern border.
        I do know that we do have cases in the Office of Children's
    Issues of children who are brought into the United States from
    Mexico or across the U.S. Mexico border, whether it is from
    Mexico or other countries and where the left behind parent has
    filed a Hague application or another application for the
    child's return.
        I don't have the numbers, but there are cases we are aware
    of those situations.
        Mr. McCormick. I would suggest we have almost no
    accountability. First of all, we know we don't have
    accountability for the tens of thousands of children who
    disappeared when they across the border. We have no
    accountability because we have no idea how many single parents
    come here at the behest of one parent, not both. Because you
    don't know, and I don't know. And we have an act that says we
    should know.
        This isn't about law because we have good laws. We just
    don't enforce them. And what I really want to make sure that
    people understand is we should make it about the child, but we
    are not.
        We have put politics ahead of children repeatedly in our
    own country. And so therefore it is absolutely obscenely
    hypocritical that we talk to other countries about not doing
    their part when we in the United States are not doing our part.
        Shame on us. Shame on this administration. Shame on us for
    not following the law and not being accountable for the very
    children we are supposed to be protecting. With that, I yield.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, doctor. Ms. Jacobs.
        Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to both of you
    for being here to testify on this important topic.
        As we all here know, the Hague Convention is an important
    tool to protect the lives of children both globally and
    domestically. And I know one of my constituents, Astrid
    Johnson, is watching this hearing today.
        Three years ago the father of her children fled to Dubai
    and ceased all communications with her. She has not had contact
    with her two young children since June 2023. And currently, she
    is unaware of their address and whereabouts, and they have
    moved several times.
        I know that you are working diligently on this case. We
    have had many conversations on this. But I want to talk about
    some of the constraints that stand in your way. In particular,
    the fact that there are some countries like the UAE who haven't
    signed onto the Hague Convention and are less cooperative.
        So I was wondering how do you approach international child
    abduction cases when it comes to these less helpful countries
    and countries that aren't party to the Hague Convention and how
    should we in Congress be thinking about that piece of this
    puzzle?
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. Thank you very much for that. When I am
    speaking with foreign government officials, especially those in
    non-Hague countries, again, I make the point that I made
    earlier is that this is about the child. And this is a child
    who in many instances is both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of
    the host government and that we have a collective
    responsibility to do right by them.
        And that does resonate often. In countries that are not
    signatory to the Hague Convention, we seek to have regular
    meetings, regular discussions about individual cases and the
    overarching issues that are creating challenges for left behind
    parents in trying to gain the return of their child or even
    just access to their child. And that is what we seek.
        Again, as I mentioned, we have an MOU with Saudi Arabia
    that lays out a specific timeframe for meetings and issues that
    we will discuss. And I think that is a model that we are trying
    to pursue with other countries as well because it means that we
    open up a dialog. We understand each other. We understand where
    the challenges are. We can be very frank in where we see the
    challenges. And we can look collectively at ways to try to
    address them.
        Ms. Jacobs. Thank you. You know, we know there are a number
    of these countries that show a pattern of non-compliance. The
    2024 Annual Report on International Child Abduction reports a
    number of them. The UAE is on that list.
        Unfortunately, while you have been successful in some of
    these cases, they do often take a very long time, sometimes
    several years such as Ms. Johnson's case.
        So how would you--you know, how should parents of
    internationally abducted children in these kinds of countries
    that are on this list engage with the State Department and
    relevant governments and raise awareness for their children,
    like what advice do you have?
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. That's an excellent question. And I hope
    that some of our parents who are here can answer that as well
    in the next panel.
        You know, I have seen some parents conduct really
    successful awareness campaigns that not just got the attention
    of the host government in a constructive way, but also elicited
    both sympathy and support from civil society in that country,
    many of whom may have been facing some of those same challenges
    themselves, depending on local laws. But I have also seen where
    those kinds of very public campaigns can be detrimental, can
    undermine efforts.
        So I think it is important that parents consult with their
    attorneys, with trusted advisors, sometimes other parents who
    have gone through the same kind of ordeal to see what is going
    to work in this country, in these circumstances given the
    circumstances of that particular case.
        But I have seen parents run very effective strategies to
    raise awareness about the pain that they have experienced,
    about the trauma to their children, and have gotten governments
    to pay attention, including our own.
        Ms. Jacobs. Well, thank you. And thank both of you for all
    of your work on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Ms. Jacobs. Just one final brief
    question. When we were writing the law, I put a section in
    there about reporting to Congress, Senate, House, individuals,
    when an individual who has had an abduction, if they give the
    consent to let that Member of Congress know so they can become
    activists on behalf of their cause.
        And it is the law, Section 104, as long as the consent is
    given by the left behind parent. Is that being implemented?
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. Yes, sir, it is.
        Mr. Smith. And do you have any idea of how many Members of
    Congress have been notified?
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. I don't. It is always at the behest of
    the agreement of the left behind parent. But, you know, again,
    I would assume that many left behind parents would love to have
    their Member of Congress involved.
        Mr. Smith. But do they know that--I mean, some people have
    no idea what people they should call. When they call the Office
    of Children's Issues, do you let them know as long as they give
    their authority, their consent, their member House or Senate--
    --
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. Yes.
        Mr. Smith [continuing]. So both can jump in?
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. Yes.
        Mr. Smith. If you could get back with any kind of number on
    how often that is actually used, because I am not aware that my
    office is--I mean, we get lots of requests, especially from out
    of the State and out of the district, but some from within. And
    I don't know of any, but maybe I missed it, that came from
    State where, you know, you said this person wants you to get
    working on this. So please let us know.
        Ms. Bernier-Toth. It is standard procedure that the Office
    of Children's Issues will ask the parent if they want us to
    contact the Member of Congress' office. But we can get back to
    you on that.
        Mr. Smith. I would appreciate that. Because I think it is
    a--I mean, we have a lot of very effective people, both sides
    of the aisle, who know how. And when we talk about delegations,
    traveling, you know, you bring your names with you every time,
    especially from your own district or State. So it is a tool
    that I think needs to be used very aggressively.
        I thank you for your testimony and look forward to working
    with you going forward.
        I would like now to welcome our second panel to the witness
    table, beginning with Jeffery Morehouse, who is the Executive
    Director of Bring Abducted Children Home, a nonprofit
    organization dedicated to the immediate return of
    internationally abducted children being wrongfully detained in
    Japan.
        BAC strives to end Japan's human rights violation of denied
    children unfettered access to both parents and works to
    increase public awareness through outreach on the crisis of
    international child parental abduction.
        He is also the founding partner of the Coalition to End
    International Parental Child Abduction, uniting organizations
    to work passionately to end, and cooperatively, to end
    international abduction of children through advocacy and public
    policy reform.
        Mr. Morehouse is an award winning filmmaker, advocate, and
    has consulted and co-authored U.S. Department of State
    publications on international child abduction.
        We will then hear from Nafeesah Ali Ismail, who is an adult
    survivor of international parental child abduction. At the age
    of seven, Ms. Ali was abducted by her father from New Jersey to
    northern Egypt, where she remained for the next 10 years. She
    returned home in February 2021 and has dedicated her life to
    helping other children and young adult survivors of
    international child abduction.
        In 2024, she was appointed as youth Ambassador to iStand
    Survivors Network, an NGO that is dedicated to empowering youth
    survivors of parental child abduction to provide support,
    resources, and a safe community for those who have experienced
    the trauma.
        Then we will hear from Melissa Kucinski, who is a lawyer
    and mediator based in Washington, DC. and New York. Her
    practice focuses exclusively on international family law, a
    large portion of which is international family abduction.
        Ms. Kucinski has trained judges on the Hague Convention in
    Maryland, California, Florida. She participates on U.S.
    delegations to the Hague Conference on the Sixth Special
    Commission, a meeting on practical operation of the Hague
    Abduction Convention, and meetings in Tokyo, Japan in 2014 to
    advise on the implementation of the Hague Convention. Ms.
    Kucinski has served on both of those delegations to the Hague.
        She teaches law at George Washington University School of
    Law and has authored several books on the subject. I would like
    to now yield to Mr. Morehouse.

                     STATEMENT OF JEFFERY MOREHOUSE

        Mr. Morehouse. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
    Wild, and to the subcommittee for inviting me here today to
    share my expertise and personal experience in the ongoing
    crisis and crime of international parental child abduction.
        I request that my written testimony be entered into the
    record.
        Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Morehouse. Thank you. Over the past 14 years of
    advocacy for others and my own personal effort to locate and
    reunite with my kidnapped son, ``Mochi`` Atomu Itomo Morehouse,
    I have been told when our children are adults, they will be
    free to contact us, the seeking parent.
        I understand the general public and the government are
    trying to offer kind words of support. These naive words
    dismiss the opportunity to engage and do more for the 30,000
    American children that have been kidnapped to a foreign country
    since 1994.
        Victims of international parental child abduction do not
    magically reunite with their seeking parent when they become
    adults. They have been indoctrinated for years by the abducting
    parents in the myths that become their reality.
        Reunification staff at the National Center for Missing and
    Exploited Children have shared with us at the conference that
    abduction victims are taught by the kidnapper that the other
    parent is dead, didn't want them, is dangerous or harmful for
    them or in the case of an abducting mother, they can be told I
    don't know who the father is, all designed to erase the desire
    to seek out your other parent.
        The Supreme Court weighed in on this. They recognized that
    family abduction is a form of child abuse with potentially
    devastating consequences for a child, which may include
    negative impacts on the physical and mental well-being of the
    child and may cause a child to experience loss of community and
    stability, leading to loneliness, anger and fear of
    abandonment.
        The impact on this crime, on victims, is lifelong. In an
    article in the Sydney Morning Herald, Susuma Wataya bravely
    shared his experience. He said he was beaten when he asked
    about his father. His last name was secretly changed, cutting
    him off from all future contact. He said, and I quote, ``I lost
    my identity. The pain that this Japanese system causes children
    is beyond description.''
        Last fall in Japan, I met Anthony Soma, a 26-year-old man,
    kidnapped to Japan from the U.S. when he was 7 years old. As a
    child, he told his mom that he wanted to see his dad. She would
    get angry at him or yell at him. So he gave up asking.
        Three years ago, he started asking questions about the
    stories he was told about his father. He said he wants to have
    a relationship with both parents without the conflict.
        Our children are trauma survivors. And that trauma doesn't
    stop when they become an adult. There should be no more
    survivors like Anthony Soma, who are concerned about the
    conflict when they want to know both parents. There should just
    be love and support that assists the child to reunite.
        Mr. Chairman, on April 11, 2024, you handed that letter,
    and you mentioned it at the beginning of today's hearing, to
    Japanese Prime Minister Kishida Fumio--I thank you again for
    that--following his address to Congress. And you wrote, ``To
    date more than 500 American children have been abducted to
    Japan by one of their respective parents and remain separated
    from the American parent. These abductions often occur against
    preexisting court orders and in some cases with the passport
    assistance of the Japanese government.
        For the sake of all the children who are suffering, and for
    the sake of U.S. and Japanese relations, I seek your public
    commitment to reunite these families. The U.S. Congress has
    been united and outspoken on these issues for years. I am
    urging your government to work to return American children.''
        At the May 22, 2024 hearing in the Foreign Affairs Full
    Committee, you also asked, Mr. Chairman, Secretary Blinken
    about the 500 American children kidnapped to Japan. He
    answered, and I will quote again, ``On child abduction, I am
    seized with this. And when we have countries that are not
    abiding by the Hague Convention or engaging in practices that
    are keeping children away from their parents that this is
    something we take action on. And I always welcome working with
    you on that.''
        I would love to learn what that action is. I haven't seen
    anything of substance to address this ongoing human and family
    rights crisis. If it doesn't result in demonstrable increase in
    the return of minor kidnapped children and the reunification of
    all American kidnapped children to or within Japan, regardless
    of age, it is all just words, words, words.
        Last month U.S. Ambassador Rahm Emanuel Tweeted
    acknowledgment of the 10th Anniversary of the Goldman Act. In
    it he announced, ``Working together with Japan, the United
    States is focused on reuniting children with their left behind
    parents and supporting families affected by parental child
    abduction.''
        Are they praising Japan? Is there some kind of new secret
    plan to actually reunite and support families? Or are they just
    making an unaccountable statement? Carefully, carefully crafted
    words.
        We need actions that lead to results. Japan took action for
    the families of the 17 Japanese citizens kidnapped to North
    Korea between 1977 and 1983. The past three U.S. Presidents
    have met with their families and made statements of support to
    the press.
        On April 18 of this year, the Associated Press reported
    that U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-
    Greenfield, met with five relatives of these abductees and told
    them, ``The United States stands with these families, with all
    of Japan, and with the international community in pressing for
    a resolution that would allow all families separated by the
    regime's policies to be reunited.''
        She furthered, ``I am all too familiar with the pain and
    loss and the suffering that you, as family members, are
    experiencing. I know how painful this is for you and then how
    long you have had to endure this pain.''
        I understand enduring pain. These seeking parents that are
    here today behind me, they understand enduring pain. Seeking
    parents from all over the globe that are watching this hearing
    right now understand enduring pain.
        Our children, cutoff from knowing their families,
    understand enduring pain. Who is going to take action to end
    our unnecessary pain? Unless Japan wants to continue to be
    internationally known as a black hole for child abduction, it
    is long past due for their government to show good faith and
    publicly commit to reuniting and returning our children.
        There must be lasting public commitment from the U.S.
    Government that we will continue to help their families. And
    that is really important, but Japan must help ours.
        Full support needs to come from the government of Japan to
    locate, fund, and provide for the reunification of our
    kidnapped children with their seeking parents.
        This should extend well into adulthood. Trained experts who
    understand the lasting damage of parental child abduction need
    to be available to assist seeking parents to bridge the gap and
    the barriers created by the child's kidnapping and hardened by
    time, the years and years these families, myself included, have
    had without our children.
        It is estimated in Japan 150,000 children per year--that is
    3 million over 20 years--are victims of loss of access to a
    parent. This reunification program should also include American
    parents who lived there and were robbed of parental rights due
    to Japan's single custody laws.
        Now you may have read, and actually Chairman Smith, I think
    you mentioned also, and some of the first panel witnesses
    talked about Japan fixing their single custody system in the
    laws in an amendment earlier this year, and it was due to
    international domestic pressure. They didn't fix it.
        Under the 2024 amendment to the Civil Code, joint parental
    responsibility would be an option in the future if both parents
    agreed. They could do that now. They could work around the
    existing system, I am sure.
        If they don't agree, a judge could order it. But it is not
    written into the law to break from years and years of
    precedence to make joint parental responsibility a new
    standard.
        It is going to take 2 years to implement, meaning it's not
    going to take effect until April 2026. After that, they are
    going to do a 5-year observation period. So now we are into
    2031 until there will be some sort of formal review of its
    effectiveness or actually ineffectiveness.
        And I have confirmed all of these facts with a Japanese
    member of Parliament, Umemura Mizuho, who has worked on this
    issue from within Japan for years. So there hasn't been a
    change as it has been reported sometimes in the press or, and I
    will take exception to the first panel, how it was represented
    in some of the testimony.
        The U.S. Government designated Brazil, India, and Japan as
    the top three worst offenders on international parental child
    abduction. Our coalition partners at Bring Our Kids Home have
    pleaded with both the U.S. and Indian governments to
    established a joint intergovernmental working group to examine
    cases and promptly repatriate victims to their countries of
    habitual residence. This would allow competent courts in both
    nations to make custody determinations in accordance with the
    best interests of the child.
        The government of India, they have been non-committal at
    best. While the U.S. continues to urge counterparts in India to
    accede to the Hague Abduction Convention, India has thus far
    refused to do so. And if they do become a Hague signatory, I am
    extremely concerned that all of these existing cases will be
    left behind again just like happened with Japan.
        As we have seen it unfold when Japan became a signatory in
    April 2024, all of the seeking parents were barred from filing
    an application for return under the Convention. We were only
    allowed to pursue access.
        The State Department's interpretation of the Goldman Act,
    420 children were excluded. And I know they talked about open
    cases in that year, but I have been around long enough
    unfortunately that I saw hearing after hearing where they
    reduced the number of cases in their testimony to hearings that
    you chaired until they finally claimed there were only 50 open
    cases on that first report.
        There were 420 children that they have acknowledged that
    were kidnapped to Japan prior to that time. These cases were
    excluded from determining Japan's noncompliance. We must not
    allow this to happen again when India, if they eventually
    accede or any other country going forward.
        Abduction cases from the United States to India, they
    continue to just languish. Hope for victimized American
    families and children has all but disappeared. The U.S.
    government's lack of an effective systemic response and the
    State Department's particular failure to utilize escalating and
    meaningful actions under the Goldman Act and hold the
    government of India accountable continue to inflict pain and
    suffering on a daily basis to American victims of IPCA.
        Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Jordan, Peru,
    Romania, and the United Arab Emirates have all been cited for
    noncompliance under the Goldman Act eight or more years since
    2014, Costa Rica and Honduras six times, Bahamas, Dominican
    Republic four times, Belize, Guatemala, Japan, Lebanon, the
    Republic of Korea, Tunisia three times. Fifteen other countries
    have been cited one or two times.
        How many tools provided by the Goldman Act have they used?
    One, a demarche, although at the hearing you mentioned there
    was one other tool used. News to me. I am glad they moved on
    once. They have used one, year after year after year, a letter.
    They sent 159 of these over the past 11 years.
        When Congress, just like you did today, questioned them
    about their usage of the tools or lack thereof, they responded,
    each tool is carefully considered and then they choose the best
    tool for that country and situation and then they send another
    d?marche.
        Dr. Jay Sun, whose son Bryan was abducted in June 2019 to
    South Korea, and Mike Fallon, who a couple of members talked
    about today, whose son Michael, Jr., was kidnapped there in
    August 2023, shared their experiences with me prior to the
    hearing. The Korean government, a Hague signatory, sees these
    cases as family matters and refuses to be involved.
        When they are asked to take action and enforce returns,
    they blame the enforcement officers for their failure. And in
    doing so, Korea allows the abductor to prolong the ongoing
    child abuse and the seeking parent is suffering.
        The underlying message is give up and go away. We are not
    giving up on our children. And we are not going away.
        What can we do today, today, to address some of the
    problems I have outlined? Represent, co-sponsor H.R. 8365, the
    Sean and David Goldman Amendments Act. Get it through
    committee. Get it to the floor.
        Section 2, Paragraph 1, redefines abduction cases so that
    it is any case reported involving an application with the
    central authority to the United States or directly with the
    foreign central authority by a seeking parent seeking the
    rights of access or return so that no child, no case, is
    forgotten and left behind again.
        And this also is very important. It addresses a statutory
    order argument that State made for years on why they have
    excluded access cases like Japan and 13 other countries. Access
    cases are abduction cases. They should not be excluded from the
    reporting when determining noncompliance.
        Section 2, Paragraph 2, is very important as well. Right
    now they are required to report to the foreign affairs and
    foreign relations in the Senate. It would expand reporting to
    Justice, which has a stake in this, Homeland Security, which
    has a stake in this, and Appropriations, which certainly has an
    important role. Under the original act, there was money written
    into it for judicial training. It never got appropriated. State
    could never train judges in family courts across the country.
        When I have been in court as an expert witness, I have to
    spend half my time trying to explain the annual report to the
    judge so they have a fuller understanding of the real risks
    with the country in question.
        Section 2, Paragraph 3, updates and changes the age of
    majority to 18, which is what it should be. That's the age of
    majority in this country and most of the world.
        Section 3 would require the diplomatic mission to do
    outreach to the victim starting at age 16 and continue. Let
    them know that they are an American citizen, and they have
    certain inherent rights. This would continue annually unless
    the victim, once an adult, requested to cease.
        The first time they make that contact, it is not
    necessarily going to break through those years and years and
    years of psychological hold and mythology, but they have a
    right to know they have certain inherent rights and services as
    a U.S. victim and as a crime victim.
        And importantly, Section 4, would call for a study of the
    grave, grave harm to abducted children and left behind parents
    as a result of IPCA. The Supreme Court recognized the
    devastating consequences of family abduction. The Senate has
    adopted multiple resolutions citing the harm done by IPCA. DOJ
    published a family resource guide on international parental
    kidnapping in 2002, last updated in 2007.
        They also updated a specific law enforcement guide on
    international parental kidnapping in 2018. There is a need for
    the study of the grave harm to the children and the seeking
    parents in this process.
        Thirty thousand U.S. children kidnapped to a foreign
    country since 1994. That is the size of an average American
    town. And it has just disappeared.
        When will we see significant actions and a whole of
    government approach to prioritizing families and preventing
    future abductions? Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Morehouse follows:]
       [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Smith. Thank you so much for that very eloquent and
    powerful statement. Ms. Ali?

                    STATEMENT OF NAFEESAH ISMAIL ALI

        Ms. Ali. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Wild,
    and members of this distinguished committee.
        My name is Nafeesah Ali Ismail, and I am an adult survivor
    of international parental child abduction.
        I sincerely thank you for the opportunity to share my story
    and related the lived experience of other children and youth
    survivors, those who have come home like me and those who still
    suffer and remain abducted in foreign lands.
        Three years ago, I came home from a 10 year abduction to
    Egypt. At the age of seven, my father took me from my
    birthplace in New Jersey. I didn't understand that when I left
    New Jersey, I was leaving my family, my language, and all that
    I had known in my young life.
        My father then decided to move to Egypt, and we never came
    back. Instead, I remember settling in a small village in
    northern Egypt where everything was foreign to me.
        In the early days, I was not directly taught Arabic
    language, but I was able to pick up the Egyptian dialect pretty
    quickly. Soon I was able to comprehend how people spoke about
    me. It was challenging and confusing for me to understand why I
    was the child with horrible skin tone that relatives slathered
    with whitening cream and also continuously straightened my
    hair.
        My father enrolled me in a language school. And even as a
    third grader, I was able to pick up on the poor quality of
    education offered to me.
        The school helped me speak Arabic, but the academic quality
    was lacking in other aspects. Regularly on my way to school,
    and people in the village stared at me loudly asking, why is
    she so dark? I can never forget those days.
        I was too young to understand. Yes, I understand perfectly
    that I didn't belong there. When I wasn't in school, I mainly
    stayed in my room imagining someone from the U.S. Government
    would knock on the door and ask for me.
        I know other survivors like me have this silly dream. I
    became depressed and lost hope that I would return to the
    United States and attempted suicide multiple times.
        As the years dragged on, altercations between me and my
    father grew more frequent. After one serious altercation, I
    decided that I had enough and reached out to my mother, whom I
    was able to maintain some contact with.
        In the beginning, my mother tried to bring me home. She
    appealed to the State Department, but she was told that she had
    to get an attorney and court orders. She was also told to work
    with Egyptian officials and my father to resolve the matter.
    She didn't know how to do that. Thankfully, my mother
    introduced me to Dr. Noelle Hunter, and iStand peer network.
        We communicated over several months while she understood my
    situation, and we planned how I could get out of Egypt. And
    honestly at this point, I had lost hope that I would come home.
    But I went along with the process.
        Then in December 2020, our plan gradually turned into
    action. First, I arranged my mother to send me money to one of
    my friends since I had no bank account and no Egyptian
    identification. I also took a chance by arranging for my online
    boyfriend, whom I never met, to meet me and take me to the safe
    house in Cairo.
        Immediately after receiving the money, I told my father
    that I had to arrange classes. In reality, I went to go buy a
    new SIM card so no one could track me. I bought a new outfit so
    no one would recognize my clothes. And after packing my
    backpack and getting ready to leave, I asked my father for a
    hug before I left.
        He told me to wait until I returned from class because he
    had a surprise. This broke my heart and made me feel guilty,
    after all I was leaving.
        I boarded a microbus to Mansoura to meet up with my online
    friend. From there, we took a taxi. And after 3 hours, I
    arrived at the safe house. I still remember the fear and relief
    I felt that day. I also believed that in just a few days, I
    will be going back home with Dr. Hunter.
        But this was not the case. To begin with, we went to the
    U.S. Embassy in Cairo to request an emergency passport. It took
    2 weeks, two trips to the Embassy, and special forms for me and
    my mother to get the passport issued.
        During this time, my father started calling the Embassy,
    making threats, demanding to know my whereabouts. The Embassy
    told me that they declined to offer any information about me as
    a U.S. citizen. I was so scared that he would find me.
        We soon learned that having an emergency passport was not
    enough for me to exit Egypt because I didn't have proof of any
    Egyptian identification. It was arranged for me to go to the
    Ministry of Administration of Passports, Immigration and
    Nationality in Cairo to obtain a foreign residence card.
        I visited the location on four separate occasions. The
    staff was uncooperative, leading me in circles, and ultimately
    denying my eligibility to obtain a foreign residence card.
        During this time, we repeatedly asked the U.S. Embassy to
    intervene. They said they made some calls to explain my
    situation, but they only kept referring us back to the
    Ministry. For the longest time, we got nowhere, and I was
    disillusioned.
        Finally, the woman who operated the safe house understood
    how to navigate the complex Egyptian system and found a
    loophole for me to obtain my Egyptian identification.
        I was able to get a foreign resident card in February 2021.
    Dr. Hunter immediately booked a one-way flight to New York
    City. I would like to point out that at the end, I came home
    with the help of a brave woman, only limited support from my
    government, and then I saved myself with the help of others.
        But what about children who are much younger than me, the
    ones who don't have advocates or have a safe house? Returning
    to the United States as a 17 year old who lived most of her
    life overseas still is challenging. Being on the verge of
    turning into an adult is terrifying, was terrifying, because my
    family did not show much support or guidance when I returned.
        My older brother helped me enroll at St. Benedict's
    Preparatory Academy for my last high school years, which helped
    me prepare for life after graduation. I am now a college
    student, and I am learning how to navigate life. It is not
    easy.
        It has been 3 years since my return, and I am grateful to
    be back home in the United States. I have experienced a lot,
    learned many things, and grown tremendously, but the way I
    returned makes me feel out of place.
        This brings me to my recommendations. Our government must
    be more proactive in preventing children like me from being
    abducted and prioritizing our return from foreign countries and
    providing a support system for us when we do come home.
        When we do come home, please help us have a soft landing
    after such a long, painful time of separation from our family
    members by funding a comprehensive aftercare program from the
    moment we step off the airplane, an aftercare program that
    involves counseling, temporary financial support, education
    support, and opportunities for connecting and healing with
    other survivors.
        I know for a fact that such aftercare support works because
    I have experienced it through iStand. They have helped me ease
    my transition back into normality and introduce me to other
    youth survivors, took me to Washington, DC, invited me to
    summer camp and now have appointed me as a youth Ambassador.
        At our summer camp, I met survivors like Dexter, Maayi, and
    Liam. I also met Miyu and Amane, who are with me today behind
    me. We hiked, we swam, and we ate our meals. We laughed and
    cried and shared our experiences together in a therapeutic
    community. We stayed in touch through WhatsApp and regular
    check-ins.
        Another survivor, Elyssa (?), who is also here today, she
    is representing her sister and her brother, Laila (?) and
    Yousef (?), from home from Lebanon. As one of the oldest youth
    survivors in our group, I feel a special obligation on their
    behalf as I am doing today in the sense that I rescued myself
    from abduction and now I want to rescue other abducted children
    and help them have a soft landing and long-term unification
    support that they need when they do return home.
        I am asking Congress, and especially members of this
    committee, to fund a long-term aftercare initiative for
    abducted survivors and turn oversight into action to bring
    abducted American children home. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Ali follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Smith. Ms. Ali, thank you so much for that amazing
    testimony. Thank you for your courage and your tenacity. And
    you are an inspiration to other abducted children that there is
    hope. So you have blazed a trial. Thank you so very, very much.
    And Noelle Hunter, thank you for your great work as always.
        I would like to now--Ms. Kucinski, the floor is yours.

                    STATEMENT OF MELISSA A. KUCINSKI

        Ms. Kucinski. Thank you. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
    Wild, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting
    me to participate in today's hearing, and I thank my co-
    panelists.
        My name is Melissa Kucinski. My comments today will
    summarize my written statement, which I have provided for the
    record and for your consideration.
        For U.S. lawyers, the most visible part of the Goldman Act
    is the Annual Report on International Child Abduction. The
    report's conclusions are routinely relied on in litigation of
    custody cases where a parent expresses a fear of parental child
    abduction. But in reviewing this report, there are
    shortcomings.
        The report misses cases that are not filed through the
    central authority. It classifies cases as successfully resolved
    when a parent may have otherwise abandoned their attempt to
    seek their child's return.
        Some countries' compliance is based on so few cases that it
    could be misleading. And the report conflates countries having
    international legal obligations to return children to the
    United States with those that do not have such an obligation.
        The Hague Conference on Private International Law also
    collects data, which paints a more accurate and comprehensive
    picture.
        Using its most recent statistics from October 2023, we see
    that Argentina, for example, averaged 218 days to resolve a
    case under the Convention. The 2024 U.S. Report classified
    Argentina as not compliant.
        In comparison, Australia averaged 309 days according to the
    Hague Conference statistics but is compliant in the U.S.
    Report. Poland, as another example, averaged 250 days according
    to Hague Conference statistics and is not compliant in the U.S.
    Report.
        The United States from its own reporting averages 253 days
    to resolve a case. The length of time to resolve these time
    sensitive cases is but one factor in determining compliance,
    but it is an important factor. And the raw data provided by the
    Hague Conference could indicate a different result than reached
    by the U.S. Report for some countries.
        Overall, the 16 noncompliant countries that are on the
    current U.S. Report are chronic designees, with 10 having been
    cited multiple times since reporting began under the act.
        The reporting and the act itself does not appear to be
    motivating a change in these countries. Therefore, I make the
    following proposals.
        First, courts in the United States take significant time to
    resolve abduction convention cases. The United States should be
    the gold standard in resolving these cases, which will then
    better enable the Department of State to represent the value of
    quickly and capably resolving these cases when they are
    discussing these matters with other countries.
        In that regard, there should be more resources devoted to
    educating our judges and designating a judge in each courthouse
    to handle these cases.
        There should be more resources devoted to educating
    American lawyers, including those who are members of the
    attorney network established by the Department of State. There
    needs to be more accurate and comprehensive statistics and more
    factual data about a country's laws and processes, which will
    stand alone to provide information to parents, lawyers, and
    judges without potentially misleading classifications.
        The Department of State should also engage in dialog on
    complementary legal issues that could potentially reduce the
    number of abductions. The three issues include, No. 1, the lack
    of clear law in family relocation cases and the
    underutilization of the Washington Declaration on International
    Family Relocation by the Hague Conference.
        No. 2, the dated research by the Department of Justice on
    abduction prevention. And No. 3, the concern that U.S. custody
    orders may not be recognized and enforced in other countries
    and how to better inform the United States on its next steps
    for the potential ratification of the Hague Child Protection
    Convention, which it signed in 2010.
        Finally and particularly for countries where there is no
    international law on which to rely for seeking a child's
    return, there should be dialog about the use of mediation as a
    potential tool to secure access to and the possible return of
    children.
        The discussion should include the lack of standards and
    training for international family mediators.
        So I thank you for your time today and for your continued
    concern for cross-border families. I welcome questions today
    and after today.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Kucinski follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Smith. We do have votes that have just been called. And
    I apologize for that. So we will have to leave momentarily.
        But each of your testimoneys were blueprints, you know, in
    terms of what didn't happen in Ms. Ali's case and how we need
    to rectify that. And I will personally get your oral as well
    written statements over to panelists in the first panel. I
    would have hoped that they would have stayed to hear you
    because it so, so powerful, and so compelling, all three of
    you.
        But you have given us a roadmap. Where do we go now? And I
    thank you, Melissa, for those thoughts. They were really,
    really good and, of course, Jeffery, you have been giving us
    insights from the very beginning. So I thank you for that.
        And we will take everything you have recommended and act on
    it to the best of our ability as a committee, as individuals
    because we care deeply about this issue, what you have endured.
    And, again, Ms. Ali, standing up for all of the other children,
    which is a perspective that we have not really had enough focus
    on year to date. So I thank you for that.
        You know, when you said that you had fantasized about the
    U.S. Government rescuing you, you know, the government did not.
    It failed you. Our government failed you. That's awful in the
    extreme. So that can't happen.
        And, of course, Jeffery, your child--we just need to step
    this up. Again, I think sanctioning is something they have got
    to matriculate from admonishing and sending our demerches to we
    are not kidding. And that is going to be my battle cry going
    forward on behalf of these children and adults to left behind
    parents.
        So I thank you from the bottom of my heart. We are going to
    keep pushing. We will get those other amendments passed. We are
    trying hard right now. And I would just like to yield for a
    final comment from the ranking member. Thank you.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I concur on everything
    that the chairman has just said. And I want you to know that
    just because we have not asked you questions today, please do
    not feel that you have not made an impact. You have made a huge
    impact on us and the work that we will do going forward.
        Speaking for myself, I will remember you, Ms. Ali, forever
    and that you will help guide the work that I continue to do in
    this area.
        I do want to allow time for us to step down so that I can
    meet each of you personally, and I am sure Chairman Smith wants
    to also and the others in the audience. So with that, I do
    suggest that we adjourn. But I do want you not to feel that
    just because we haven't asked you questions this hasn't been
    tremendous impactful. Thank you.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you. The hearing is adjourned, and I thank
    you.
        Mr. Morehouse. If I could just request that parents and
    other NGO's that wish to submit statements for the record be
    allowed to do so.
        Mr. Smith. Without objection so ordered, please.
        Mr. Morehouse. Thank you.
        Mr. Smith. Oh, yes, pursuant to the rules, of course,
    members may have 5 days to submit statements, questions, and
    extraneous materials for the record subject to the length
    limitations. Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
    And again, thank you again.
        [Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]