[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]