[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 5]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 7108-7109]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    RESOLVING INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTIONS TO NON-HAGUE 
                          CONVENTION COUNTRIES

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 16, 2013

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last week, the Subcommittee on 
Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International 
Organizations, which I chair, held a hearing focused on the persistent 
and devastating problem of international parental child abduction, 
which occurs when one parent unlawfully moves a child from his or her 
country of residence, often for the purpose of denying the other parent 
access to the child.
  The damage to the child and the left behind parent is incalculable 
and too often life-long. The children especially are at risk of serious 
emotional and psychological problems and may experience anxiety, eating 
problems, nightmares, mood swings, sleep disturbances, aggressive 
behavior, resentment, guilt and fearfulness. These victims are American 
citizens who need the help of their government when normal legal 
processes are unavailable or fail.
  In 1983, the United States ratified the Hague Convention on the Civil 
Aspects of International Child Abduction to try to address this serious 
issue. This Convention creates a civil framework for the quick return 
of abducted children, and for rights of access to both parents. Absent 
extenuating circumstances, the child is to be returned within 6 weeks 
to their country of habitual residence for the courts there to decide 
on custody or to enforce any previous custody determinations.
  The Convention has helped return many children, but it is far from a 
silver bullet. Even in countries where the Convention is allegedly 
working, only about 40 percent of children are returned. Other cases 
are ``resolved,'' but too often with dubious application of the 
Convention.
  Susceptible to abuse by taking parents or unwilling judges, the 
Convention has too often been stretched to provide cover for abduction 
rather than recovery of the child. Taking parents have figured out that 
they can drag out hearing after hearing, appeal after appeal for years 
until the courts can claim that, ``Yes, the child should have been 
returned but that the child is settled in the new country now and does 
not have to be returned under an exception in the Convention.''
  Some Hague Convention signatories are simply not enforcing legitimate 
return orders. The State Department's 2012 Hague Convention Compliance 
Report highlights six countries--Argentina, Australia, France, Mexico, 
Netherlands, and Romania--for failing to enforce return orders. Other 
countries--Costa Rica, Guatemala, The Bahamas, Brazil, and Panama--are 
non-compliant with the Convention or showing patterns non-compliance.
  In other words, abducted American children are not coming home from 
these countries and American families need other options.
  The same is true for many countries that have not signed the Hague 
Convention. In 2012 alone, more than 634 children were abducted to 
countries that have not signed the Hague Convention--countries like 
Japan, Egypt, and India.
  More than 300 children have suffered abduction from the United States 
to Japan since 1994. Congress does not know of a single case in which 
the Government of Japan has issued and enforced an order for the return 
of an abducted child to the United States. According to U.S. State 
Department statistics, the United States is monitoring 54 ongoing cases 
involving 74 children who were abducted from the United States to Japan 
and 21 additional children from the United States who may not have been 
abducted, but who are being denied access to their American parent.
  Although Japan has recently taken steps to join the Hague Convention, 
Japan's ratification will not address current cases for return. 
Moreover, experts question whether the ratification includes 
reservations that will make it impossible for even new abduction cases 
to be resolved with returns.
  The United States does not have a bilateral or other agreement with 
Japan to facilitate the return of American citizen children who are 
currently abducted-citizens like Jade and Michael Elias, whose father 
will testify before us today.
  Under the Convention alone, if ratified by Japan, the best that 
American parents of currently abducted children can hope for is a visit 
with their child. Such visits are projected to be one hour long, once a 
month, in a secure facility-hardly dignified or unfettered.

[[Page 7109]]

  Despite our multi-billion dollar investment in Egypt, neither the 
Mubarak government nor the Morsi government has seen fit to return 
abducted American citizen children Noor and Ramsey Bower. They, along 
with 30 other American children in Egypt, are forced to live without 
half of their culture, half of their identity, and without the love and 
guidance of an American parent who daily fights for their return. The 
United States does not have a bilateral agreement with Egypt to 
facilitate the return of American citizen children, and has so far been 
unwilling to make prioritization of these cases a condition for the 
continued funding of the Egyptian Government.
  India also has been a source of immense frustration and grief for 
American parents. In 2012, 32 more children were abducted to India, 
bringing the total number to 78 open abduction cases involving 95 
children. Although some Indian courts make ``Hague-like'' decisions to 
return some children, returns are uneven. Parents attempting to utilize 
India's courts for the return of abducted children report corruption 
and incessant delays. The United States does not have a bilateral 
agreement with India to facilitate the return of American citizen 
children Convention.
  In the last Congress I introduced legislation--the Sean and David 
Goldman Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act--to impress upon both 
Hague and non-Hague Convention countries that the United States will 
not tolerate child abduction or have patience with countries that hide 
abductors behind the Hague Convention. The bill would empower the 
President and Department of State with new tools and authorities to 
secure the return of abducted American children.
  When a country has shown a ``pattern of non-cooperation'' in 
resolving child abduction cases, the President will be able to respond 
decisively with a range of 18 actions and penalties. Based on past 
experience--particularly with the Goldman case in Brazil--we know that 
penalties manage to get the attention of other governments, and help 
them prioritize resolution.
  The bill also calls for the State Department to work out memorandums 
of understanding with countries that have not signed the Hague 
Convention in order to create agreed-upon routes to abduction 
resolution between countries, rather than the never-ending and 
torturous maze American are currently forced to run.
  The status quo is simply not adequate, while well meaning and 
sincere, current policy has failed far too many children and their left 
behind, broken hearted, parents. To combat the cruelty and exploitation 
of human trafficking, over a decade ago I authored the Trafficking 
Victims Protection Act. To tangibly assist abducted American children 
and their left behind parents I introduced ``The Sean and David Goldman 
Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act'' this week. The United 
States can and must do more to protect innocent American children and 
their left behind parents from the horrors of international child 
abduction.

                          ____________________