[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 14]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 20324-20325]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    THE GOLDMAN ACT TO RETURN ABDUCTED AMERICAN CHILDREN: ENSURING 
                         ADMINISTRATION ACTION

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, December 16, 2015

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last month, I chaired the 
fourth oversight hearing this year on implementation of the Sean and 
David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act.
  The Goldman Act empowers the executive branch with powerful new tools 
and a myriad of ways to successfully resolve parental child abduction 
cases. Like any law, however, it is only as good as its implementation.
  Historically, 750-1,000 American children are unlawfully removed from 
their homes each year by one of their parents and taken across 
international borders.
  International parental child abduction rips children from their homes 
and takes them away to a foreign land, alienating them from the love 
and care of the parent and family left behind.
  Child abduction is child abuse. Its negative impact on the children 
and left behind families can last for years--even a lifetime.
  Two of our witnesses at the hearing--like many who were there and are 
around the country--know first-hand the trauma, the tears, the 
excruciating pain, and the longing and heartbreak of parental child 
abduction.
  David Goldman's son Sean was abducted to Brazil and unlawfully 
retained for approximately 5\1/2\ years. Mr. Goldman tenaciously 
pursued every legal means of return including expert counsel in his 
quest to bring Sean home. Today father and son are thriving.
  Captain Paul Toland continues his heroic 12 year quest to bring his 
13 year old daughter, Erica, home from Japan. Captain Toland refuses to 
quit or be deterred despite years of frustration and setbacks--such is 
this father's incredible love for his precious daughter.
  Our first hope is to prevent, or at least mitigate the number of, 
abductions and the State Department is to be commended for implementing 
a provision of the Goldman Act that adds children that a judge has 
determined to be at risk of abduction to a ``no fly'' list. In 2014, we 
saw a decrease in the number of new abductions--150 fewer new cases 
than the previous year.
  But I am concerned that the State Department has chosen not to impose 
any sanctions on any of those nations found to have engaged in a 
``pattern of noncompliance.''
  The Goldman Act, however, requires State Department action on 
individual cases that have been pending for more than a year if the 
foreign government has not been taking adequate steps to resolve the 
case.
  The Goldman Act also requires action when, collectively, a country 
has high numbers of cases--30 percent or more--that have been 
unresolved for over a year; or if the government is failing in their 
duties under the Hague Convention or other bilateral agreement; or if 
their law enforcement fails to enforce return or access orders.
  The Goldman Act not only shines a light on a country's record through 
the annual designation of countries showing a ``pattern of non-
compliance'', it holds countries accountable and incentivizes systemic 
reform. Actions escalate in severity, and range from official protests 
through diplomatic channels, to public condemnation, to extradition, to 
the suspension of development, security, or other foreign assistance.
  The Goldman Act was designed to raise the stakes on the foreign 
country's inaction or obstruction, and move the country to end the 
nightmare of abduction.
  In July we reviewed the State Department's first annual report on 
abduction and access resolution rates around the world. The annual 
report had some major gaps and misleading information, some of which 
were corrected by the Supplemental Data posted by the State Department 
in August.
  Tragically, in contravention of both the spirit and letter of the 
Goldman Act, the State Department failed to list Japan--with more than 
50 abduction cases--among the 22 countries showing a ``pattern of 
noncompliance'' and therefore eligible for Goldman Act sanctions. This 
glaring omission sent the unfortunate signal that pre-Hague Japan cases 
were no longer a top priority--cases like that of Sgt. Michael Elias 
who has been denied any contact with his two young children, Jade and 
Michael, after they were abducted to Japan in 2008.

[[Page 20325]]

  In September the State Department sent to Congress its first 90 day 
report on actions it took to bring the 22 most difficult countries to 
the resolution table.
  Those actions included demarches, judicial rulings, and meetings--all 
of which are necessary and of value--but noticeably absent was the 
imposition of any number of meaningful sanctions prescribed by the 
Goldman Act.
  I respectfully submit that this was a missed opportunity to convey to 
``pattern of non-compliance'' nations that the United States is 
absolutely serious about resolving parental abduction. The imposition 
of sanctions says we mean business. (Sanctions are imposed on an entity 
to enforce civil rights laws and other policies of paramount 
importance)
  Notwithstanding section 103 of the Goldman Act, the Report makes no 
mention of MOUs or bilateral agreements to resolve cases--including and 
especially cases that existed prior to Japan's ratification of the 
Hague.
  I--and others--have raised this concern for several years, especially 
for victims of Japan's policies. Perhaps Assistant Secretary Bond can 
tell us if any bilateral agreements or MOUs are in the works.
  The report details the State Department's efforts to persuade India 
to ratify the Hague Convention--a step that if not combined with an MOU 
to resolve current abduction cases, which number about 75, we risk 
replicating the extraordinary misery endured by left behind parents 
after Japan ratified the Hague. If India ratified the Hague it will--
like Japan--grandfather preexisting cases out of the convention 
resolution process.
  Bindu Philips, mother of Albert and Alfred, has struggled with her 
ex-husband in Indian courts for the return of her sons for nearly nine 
years. Ravi Parmar has been fighting for his son's return for three 
years.
  Section 201 of the Goldman Act also requires the State Department to 
conduct a review of individual cases pending 12 months or more to 
discern whether the foreign government has taken adequate steps to 
resolve the case or whether actions are warranted. This is the 
``individual case'' trigger for actions (as opposed to the ``pattern of 
noncompliance'' country trigger). Despite a half-dozen Congressional 
letters from various members of Congress asking for Sec. 201 reviews of 
egregious cases, the State Department, to my knowledge, has not done a 
single review, much less applied actions.
  I am encouraged by a press statement by Secretary of State John 
Kerry.
  While noting that the Goldman Act provides ``additional tools to 
advocate for the return of abducted children'' he states ``there can be 
no safe haven for abductors. The Department of State will continue to 
use all the tools available to us to help those involved in 
international parental child abduction cases to resolve their disputes 
and move forward with their lives.''

                          ____________________