[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4483-4485]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 COMPLIANCE WITH THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate this 
afternoon to urge Senate passage of House-Senate Concurrent Resolution 
No. 69. The resolution will be in front of us shortly, either later 
this afternoon or next week. I thank my friend and my colleague from 
the State of Ohio, Congressman Steve Chabot, as well as Representative 
Nick Lampson from the State of Texas, for introducing and

[[Page 4484]]

gaining approval of this resolution in the House of Representatives.
  It is unfortunate, however, that we need to be here today taking up 
this resolution. It is unfortunate because that fact acknowledges that 
we have made little progress in getting the return of American children 
who have been abducted and taken abroad, usually by a parent.
  This resolution addresses the serious issue of international child 
abduction and the importance of The Hague Special Review Commission on 
International Child Abduction which formally began its work yesterday 
and will continue meeting until March 28.
  This commission is raising the importance and the necessity of 
compliance with The Hague Convention on the International Aspects of 
Child Abduction. The Hague convention is in place to facilitate the 
return of internationally abducted children to their countries of 
``habitual residence'' for custody determination. This means, according 
to the Hague convention many countries have signed, when there is a 
dispute about the custody of a child, the child's place of ``habitual 
residence'' is the country where that determination should be made.
  Sadly, it has been clear for some time that all countries that have 
signed the convention do not take their obligation seriously. Certain 
countries in particular--allies of ours such as Germany, Austria, 
Sweden--have performed especially poorly in returning children and 
allowing family visitation options.
  What are we talking about? What is the situation that brings about 
this international parental kidnapping? Usually it is a case such as 
this: An American citizen falls in love, marries someone from another 
country, they decide to live in the United States, and a child is born. 
Then one day the spouse who is the American citizen, the spouse who was 
one of the two parties to this union, wakes up and finds the other 
spouse gone and the child gone. That mother, that father, takes that 
child back to where that mother or dad came from originally, and now 
the parent in the United States is looking for their child.
  This is a human tragedy, a tragedy that is repeated in this country 
many times every year.
  As many of my colleagues know, this is not the first time I have come 
to the Senate floor to talk about this issue and to raise the tragic 
problem of international child abduction. In fact, exactly 1 year ago 
today, I came to the Senate floor to discuss this issue. I came to the 
floor and a year ago introduced a similar resolution urging compliance 
with the Hague convention. While the House and the Senate both passed 
that resolution, regrettably I have to be back here again this 
afternoon because, tragically, we have seen very little, if any, 
progress in gaining signatory compliance and ultimately in getting our 
children back.
  Specifically, the resolution before us today identifies key problems 
with the current Hague convention. What are these problems?
  No. 1, a lack of awareness about international parental kidnappings 
among policymakers and the general public in the signatory nations. 
This is just not an issue that people really understand, and it is not 
an issue to which the governments of the signatory countries are paying 
any attention.
  No. 2, a lack of awareness and training of judges who hear these 
cases, who hear these international abduction cases, training that 
would enable them to interpret and rule on these cases fairly and would 
enable them to appreciate the importance of these cases.
  No. 3, different interpretations of the Hague convention by signatory 
nations. We see that all the time. There is no uniformity or 
consistency.
  No. 4, one of the problems with the Hague convention is the failed 
enforcement of parental access rights and a lack of enforcement of 
court orders for the return of children.
  Finally, we see a narrow exception to the requirement of returning 
children, which prevents them from being returned if they are perceived 
to be, upon return--and this is the language that is in the Hague 
convention--in grave risk of being exposed to psychologically damaging 
or physically harmful situations.
  Instead of being the exception, this loophole has really become the 
rule. It has become standard procedure and is frequently used as a 
justification for not returning children at all. Basically, all the 
court has to do is to make a determination that if the child were 
returned to his or her parent in the country where the child was 
originally brought up, if the court finds that this would place the 
child in grave risk of being exposed to a psychologically damaging or 
physically harmful situation, the court does not have to abide by The 
Hague convention. There is nothing wrong with the intent, but it is 
abundantly clear that this language is being used as a loophole, 
particularly in the area of finding a grave risk of psychological 
damage being done. These are some of the problems.
  Additionally, our resolution calls on this special session of The 
Hague that is now meeting to determine practice guidelines, practice 
guidelines that would build on expert opinions and research-based 
practices in handling international child custody disputes and 
kidnappings.
  Why do we need these guidelines? We need these guidelines because 
currently set standards are not in place telling signatory nations what 
to do when a court rules that a child should be returned. By 
implementing these guidelines, we would be telling nations that they 
could no longer hide behind the vagueness of The Hague convention 
articles anymore. They would not be able to use a lack of guidelines as 
a reason to keep children from a parent and from their homeland.
  The reality is, we cannot understate nor can we ignore the importance 
of getting these children returned to their homes in the United States. 
Sadly, our previous administration, the Clinton administration, did not 
put these children at the top of its priority list. As a result, the 
number of international abductions has continued to increase.
  In 1997, 280 abducted American children were living in foreign 
countries. That is the official number. I happen to believe, based upon 
anecdotal evidence, based upon conversations I have had with my 
colleagues and with other individuals, that the number in 1997 was much 
higher than that.
  The official number is 280 in 1997 who were abducted children who 
were living in foreign countries. In 1998, that number increased to 
398. And in 1999, the official number was 441. Last year, it was a 
staggering 775.
  Quite candidly, our inability to resolve these cases has been due to, 
in part at least, our Government's lack of attention to this issue.
  According to the State Department, each year the United States sends 
an estimated 90 percent of kidnapped children back to foreign 
countries. In other words, this country, the United States, that has 
signed The Hague convention, complies in 90 percent of the cases. We 
make determinations in our courts that in 90 percent of the cases these 
children should in fact be returned to the place they were resident 
when they were abducted and taken from these countries. So the United 
States is in compliance. We are following The Hague convention.
  As the lawyers would say, we come to this issue with clean hands. The 
sad fact is, though, that even though we do it 90 percent of the time, 
and even though we are in compliance with the Hague, the rate of return 
of American children by other nations belonging to the Hague convention 
is much lower. A State Department report singles out several countries 
for their noncompliance with the accord, including Mauritius, Austria, 
Honduras, Mexico, and Sweden.
  Notably absent from this report, however, was Germany, which, as I 
have already mentioned, has also established a disturbing pattern of 
noncompliance. Because of Germany's noncompliance record, an American/
German working group on child custody issues has been established to 
help encourage Germany to return abducted children. However, 
essentially no progress has been made regarding open cases--either in 
the return of children

[[Page 4485]]

to the United States or in allowing left-behind parents adequate visits 
with their children in Germany. To that end, we must not allow 
Germany--or any other signatory nation--to ignore their convention 
obligations and turn blindly against the parents who have suffered 
unbelievable heartache due to the loss of their children.
  What we have to remember when a parent abducts a child is that each 
abduction involves the destruction of a family. Yes, it is unfair for 
the mother or father who is left behind, but much more importantly, it 
is unfair for that child. A good illustration of this is what happened 
to Tom Sylvester of Cincinnati, OH. I have talked to Mr. Sylvester 
about his case, about his child. I have seen the desperation on his 
face. Tom is the father of a little girl named Carina, whom he has seen 
for a total of only about 18 days since his ex-wife abducted her from 
Michigan, where they lived, in 1995. The ex-wife took this little girl 
to Austria. The day after the kidnapping, Mr. Sylvester filed a 
complaint with the State Department and started legal proceedings under 
the Hague convention.
  An Austrian court heard his complaint, and the court ordered the 
return of Carina to Mr. Sylvester. However, this court order was never 
enforced, and Carina's mother took the child into hiding. Eventually, 
though, when Carina's mother surfaced with the child, the Austrian 
courts reversed their decision on returning her to the father, finding 
that she ``resettled into her new environment''--a decision clearly 
contrary to the terms of the Hague convention.
  Sadly, Mr. Sylvester is still waiting to get his little girl back.
  The bottom line is this, Mr. President: We must make the return of 
America's children a top priority with our State Department, a top 
priority with our Justice Department. Governance and policymaking are 
clearly about setting priorities. It is my hope that the new leadership 
in our State Department and the new leadership in the Justice 
Department will make that issue a top priority and will start trying to 
get these kids back.
  I raised this issue with Attorney General Ashcroft during his Senate 
confirmation hearings, and I have written to the Secretary of State as 
well about the urgency of this issue. Today, I again say to our Justice 
Department and to our State Department: We must begin to prioritize 
these cases. Yes, it is important to worry about trade issues. Yes, 
there are many other issues on the desks of the State Department and 
our embassies. But what could be more important than a child? If we can 
say that foreign trade is important, we should also say that our 
children are important as well.
  It is a question of setting priorities, and we must begin to 
prioritize these cases, and our State Department and our Justice 
Department must do this. No excuses should be accepted by the parents 
of these children, nor by the Senate, nor by the House of 
Representatives, nor by the American people. This must be a priority. 
These kids must be a priority.
  As a parent and a grandparent, I cannot begin to imagine the 
nightmare so many American parents face when their children are 
kidnapped by a current or former spouse and taken abroad. It is hard to 
imagine. But, tragically, this is a very real and daily nightmare for 
hundreds of parents right here in this country. That is why the 
resolution we have introduced is critical to encouraging the safe 
return of children to the United States. It gives us an opportunity to 
help make a positive difference in the lives of children and their 
families.
  In the end, if we are to succeed in bringing parentally abducted 
children back to their homes in the United States, the Federal 
Government must take an active role in their return. Ultimately, our 
Government has an obligation to these parents, but much more 
importantly, to these children. We must place our children first. They 
must become our priority.
  I urge my colleagues to join in support and passage of this very 
important resolution.

                          ____________________