[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 5186-5187]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 THE GOLDMAN ACT TO RETURN ABDUCTED AMERICAN CHILDREN: REVIEWING OBAMA 
                     ADMINISTRATION IMPLEMENTATION

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 16, 2015

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last month I held a hearing to 
continue and increase attention on international parental child 
abduction, whose victims include primarily children denied the love and 
attention of one of their parents, and parents cut off from the 
children they love.
  Every year, approximately 1,000 American children are unlawfully 
removed from their homes by one of their parents and taken across 
international borders. Less than half of these children ever come home.
  Most of the left-behind parents in the audience at last month's 
hearing have not seen their children in years and know all too well the 
financial, legal, cultural, and linguistic obstacles to bringing their 
children home from a foreign country. Many of them had already been 
through U.S. judicial proceedings prior to the abduction, and the 
courts had settled custody and visitation, only to have a kidnapping 
spouse defy a court order. Other parents were caught completely by 
surprise when a spouse's vacation turned into an abduction, a phone 
call in the middle of the night telling them that would never again see 
their child.
  Their suffering is exponentially compounded by knowledge of the pain 
caused to their child by the separation. Child abduction is child 
abuse. Parentally-abducted children 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 young victims, like their left-behind parents, are American 
citizens who need the help of their government when normal legal 
processes are unavailable or have failed.
  In 1983, the United States ratified the Hague Convention on the Civil 
Aspects of International Child Abduction to try to address abduction 
and access. This convention creates a civil framework for the quick 
return of abducted children and for rights of access for left-behind 
parents. Absent extenuating circumstances, the child, or children, are 
to be returned within 6 weeks to his or her country of habitual 
residence for the courts there to decide on custody, or to enforce any 
previous custody determinations.
  The Convention has helped return some children but implementation has 
been unpredictable and spotty at best. Susceptible to abuse by taking 
parents or judges who either don't understand their obligations under 
the Convention or are unwilling to abide by them, the Convention has 
too often been stretched to provide cover for the abduction, rather 
than recovery of the child.
  Some Hague Convention parties are simply not enforcing legitimate 
return orders. The State Department's 2014 Hague Convention Compliance 
Report highlights four countries--Brazil, Mexico, Romania, and 
Ukraine--that habitually fail to enforce return orders. Other 
countries--Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and the Bahamas--are non-
compliant with the Convention.
  In other words, abducted American children are not coming home from 
these countries and so many other countries where the Convention 
operates weakly, or with which the U.S. has no bilateral agreement of 
any kind.
  To give one more example, Jeffery Morehouse, a left behind parent, 
testified that ``there have been 400 cases of U.S. children kidnapped 
to Japan since 1994.'' We do not know of a single case, however, in 
which the Government of Japan has issued and enforced an order for the 
return of an abducted child to the United States.
  And, I must emphasize, that since they have signed the Hague, Japan's 
efforts have been breathtakingly unresponsive especially for abductions 
that occurred prior to their ratification of the Hague Convention.
  Mr. Morehouse testified that, ``one year ago next week, at the very 
moment Japan acceded to the Hague Abduction Convention, parents joined 
us to hand-deliver 30 Article 21 Access applications (I joined those 
parents at the Japanese Embassy) . . . none of the BAC Home parents 
have received access to their kidnapped children. Japan's 
implementation of the Hague Abduction Convention is an abysmal failure. 
Sanctions under the Goldman Act will provide some of the necessary 
public pressures on Japan to create change to this ongoing human and 
family rights crisis.''

[[Page 5187]]

  The status quo is simply unacceptable.
  Over the last 5 years, many of those at the hearing helped me write 
and pass through the Congress the Sean and David Goldman Child 
Abduction Prevention and Return Act. Last month's hearing occurs more 
than seven months after the Goldman Act became law and gave us an 
opportunity to hear from the State Department and parents whether the 
bill's key provisions are being implemented according to the law.
  A brief refresher on Sean and David: David Goldman spent over 5 
agonizing years trying to legally rescue his son, Sean, from an 
abduction to Brazil, which is a signatory nation, like the United 
States, to the Hague Abduction Convention.
  Despite Mr. Goldman's airtight case that demonstrated an egregious 
example of both child abduction and wrongful retention, the Hague 
treaty was unavailing, and the outcomes in the Brazilian courts largely 
proved infuriating, infirm, and ineffective.
  David Goldman waged his case by the book and won judgments in the New 
Jersey courts. Yet both Sean and David were made to suffer emotional 
pain for over half a decade as one delaying ploy after another was 
employed by the abducting party. In the end, because of the father's 
abiding love for his son and an indomitable will, the Goldmans today 
are united and happy.
  To underscore: the Goldman Act was not intended to simply reform the 
system, but to bring about a fundamental sea change in U.S. diplomacy 
so that State Department officials would see themselves as advocates 
for the return of abducted American children.
  Now under the Goldman Act, when a country fails to appropriately 
address an abduction case pending more than 12 months, the law requires 
the Secretary of State to take action. When a country has more than 30% 
of its U.S. cases pending for more than a year, the law requires the 
Secretary of State to designate the country as ``Non-Compliant'' in an 
annual report, and take action.
  The Goldman Act specifically lists the increasingly escalating 
actions that Congress has in mind, from a demarche--or a protest 
through diplomatic channels--to a public condemnation to a delay or 
cancellation of one or more bilateral visits and even the withdrawal, 
limitation, or suspension of foreign assistance including non-
humanitarian aid and including security assistance to the central 
government of a country. These are serious sanctions that must be 
seriously applied by a country that takes parental child abduction 
seriously.
  We may also request extradition where appropriate.
  If these measures sound pointed, it is because they are intended to 
focus the destination country on quick and accurate resolution of 
abduction and access cases.
  The Goldman Act was written to cover countries that have signed the 
Hague Convention, such as Brazil; countries that have not signed the 
Convention, such as India; and countries that have a mix of open 
abduction cases from before and after signing the Hague Convention, 
such as Japan.
  In 2013, India was the number three destination in the world for 
parents who abducted from the United States. Currently, there are 64 
known open abduction and denial of access cases involving India. And 
yet the United States does not have any sort of resolution mechanism 
with India. Moms and dads left behind in the United States are forced 
to enter a labyrinthine foreign court system known for its incessant 
appeals and multi-year delays.
  But now the Goldman Act applies. India will now face real penalties 
for any case that has been pending for more than one year, and will be 
``named and shamed'' in the State Department's report. As with the 
State Department's annual trafficking report, there is morally suasive 
value in simply reporting what a country does, and some countries will 
I am sure respond to such moral pressure.
  Thus we expect the State Department to apply these penalties 
zealously, and to work with India on establishing a bilateral agreement 
for the efficient and fair resolution of abduction and access cases. If 
the State Department faithfully applies the law as written, it will be 
in India's interest to come to the negotiating table.
  The same holds true for Japan, even though Japan recently signed the 
Hague Convention. Among such cases is that of Michael Elias, who has 
not seen his children, Jade and Michael Jr., since 2008. Michael served 
as a Marine who saw combat in Iraq. His wife, who worked in the 
Japanese consulate, used documents fraudulently obtained with the 
apparent complicity of Japanese consulate personnel to kidnap their 
children, then aged 4 and 2, in defiance of a court order, telling 
Michael on a phone call that there was nothing that he could do, as 
``my country will protect me.''
  Her country will protect her, but what is our country doing to 
protect Michael and his children?
  While the State Department has touted Japan's accession to the Hague 
Convention as an accomplishment, Japan has said the Convention would 
only apply in post-ratification cases. As Ambassador Jacobs knows, I 
and several others predicted that unless a MOU or other bilateral 
agreement was concluded with Japan, American children and their left 
behind parents will be left behind in perpetuity. I ask to my friends 
at the State Department, what then is to happen for parents already 
suffering from abductions prior to ratification? Would they be left-
behind again--this time by their own government?
  I know Ambassador Jacobs, who testified at last month's hearing, as 
recently as February 2014 in her testimony before the Senate, stated 
that she would continue to make ``progress with the Japanese government 
on resolving existing cases in the spirit of the Convention.''
  The Goldman Act requires accountability for the Japanese government 
on the abduction cases open at the time Japan signed the Convention. 
Unless Japan resolves scores of American cases before the end of next 
month, nearly 100% of abduction cases in Japan will still be unresolved 
and Goldman Act penalties will apply.
  The Goldman Act has given the State Department new and powerful tools 
to bring Japan, and other countries, to the resolution table. The goal 
is not to disrupt relations but to heal the painful rifts caused by 
international child abduction.

                          ____________________