[Senate Hearing 105-845]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 105-845
UNITED STATES RESPONSES TO INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL ABDUCTION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 1, 1998
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-772 cc WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JESSE HELMS, North Carolina, Chairman
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
PAUL COVERDELL, Georgia PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming CHARLES S. ROBB, Virginia
ROD GRAMS, Minnesota RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
BILL FRIST, Tennessee PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
James W. Nance, Staff Director
Edwin K. Hall, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
DeWine, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from Ohio........................ 17
Johnson, Thomas A., Alexandria, Virginia......................... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Marinkovich, Paul, Simi Valley, California....................... 54
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Meyer, Lady Catherine I., British Embassy, Washington, DC........ 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Reno, Hon. Janet, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Sylvester, Thomas R., Cincinnati, Ohio........................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 32
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions Submitted for the Record by the
Committee...................................................... 67
Abduction of Carina Maria Sylvester by Monika Rossmann (AKA
Monika Sylvester) and the Government of Austria, a Chronology.. 69
Abduction of Amanda Kristina Johnson by Anne Franzen (AKA Anne
Franzen Johnson) and the Government of Sweden, a Chronology.... 78
Statement Submitted by Hon. Tom Daschle.......................... 82
Statement Submitted by Laura Kingsley Hong....................... 84
Letters and Additional Material Submitted for the Record on the
Subject of International Child Abduction....................... 89
List of Additional Material Submitted for the Record Which Will
be Maintained in the Committee's Files......................... 150
(iii)
UNITED STATES RESPONSES TO INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL ABDUCTION
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1998
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-419, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Jesse Helms, chairman of the
committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Helms, Biden, and Robb.
Also Present: Senator DeWine.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
I would say preliminarily that this is a right busy time up
here. All the committees are meeting, trying to finish up
whatever bills they can before adjournment, sine die, as
Senator Byrd refers to it.
Madam Attorney General, we are so glad to welcome you here
this morning, and I am glad that your first appearance before
this Committee this morning is the first time in 9 years that
any Attorney General has appeared before the Foreign Relations
Committee. So, that makes it a double pleasure to work with
you. The last time, by the way, for anybody taking notes, was
1989 when Dick Thornburgh visited this committee.
Madam Attorney General, your coming here this morning to
discuss the growing problem of international parental
kidnapping is a very good measurement of your personal interest
in this matter.
Following your testimony, the committee will hear from a
number of parents, each of whom will have heartbreaking stories
about how their former spouses unlawfully took their children
to foreign countries and about the subsequent search to find
and seek the return of those children. I was surprised to
learn, by the way, that these children were taken not to the
closed societies of the Middle East, but to European countries
with democratic and open societies.
Now, the parents who will testify today will describe many
long and expensive court battles in efforts to get their
children back. For example, they will tell stories of hiring
lawyers in foreign courts that favor their own citizens despite
the existing treaty requirements that the children be returned,
stories of futile or insufficient diplomatic efforts by the
United States, and stories of the failure by the United States
to issue arrest warrants or seek extradition of the former
spouses who unlawfully spirited the children away.
But it needs to be emphasized, I think, that this
frustration with the existing process is not uniquely American.
Our committee will hear today from a well-known British
citizen, the wife of the British Ambassador to the United
States, Lady Catherine Meyer. Lady Meyer has spent the past
several years seeking the return of her sons from their father
in Germany.
It would be an ideal circumstance, Madam Attorney General,
if we could have you sitting side-by-side with the
distinguished Secretary of State discussing how the United
States can better respond to the thousands of cases of
international parental kidnapping every year.
The question, of course, is what exactly is the problem?
For many years in the United States, the kidnapping of a child
by a parent was considered a family matter, not a criminal
matter. Today, all 50 States do have criminal statutes that
require the return of any child taken across a State line by a
parent.
During this hearing, parents are going to recite how the
process breaks down when a child is taken across foreign
borders. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction requires that children be
returned to the habitual resident from which the child was
taken. Each year--and you will amplify on this--U.S. Courts
send an estimated 90 percent of kidnapped children back to
foreign countries, but that statistic for returns to this
country is not nearly as perfect. Only some 30 percent of
kidnapped children are returned to the United States.
Parents have reported to me the failure by the United
States to initiate vigorously diplomatic and law enforcement
tools seeking the return of their children. These parents
report a sense of frustration--and I can understand that--with
the obviously low priority placed on the return of abducted
children compared to other diplomatic relations.
Unfortunately, in most cases the kidnapping parents often
flee U.S. borders with the children before law enforcement
officers are even made aware of the unlawful act. Even in
instances where local law enforcement is brought in, officers
often are not aware of the process of tracking the kidnapper
parent at the international level.
The next step of issuing international arrest warrants for
or requesting the extradition of the kidnapping parent can
become a maze of bureaucracy for parents and local law
enforcement officials. Even when they succeed in persuading the
Justice Department to seek extradition, the State Department
may very well refuse to go forward with the request.
In one case documented by the United States Information
Agency (USIA) Crime Alert Program, one United States mother,
whose son was abducted by her ex-husband to Prague in the Czech
Republic, had a Federal arrest warrant sworn against her ex-
husband. She made repeated efforts to have the FBI contact the
U.S. embassy and the Czech authorities to carry out the
warrant. Then, after months of no response by the FBI, the
mother left her job and went to Prague, and in short order, she
learned that her ex-husband and son indeed had been in Prague
and had recently left on passports renewed by the State
Department. The State Department claimed to have had no
knowledge of the warrant or the kidnapping.
Now, I have gone to great length with this prelude because
this is a matter of great concern, as I know it is to you, and
I doubly appreciate your coming here.
These are the kinds of cases that should not occur and
reflect a breakdown in coordination. So, I hope that you and I,
as well as the Secretary of State--and I think Madeleine will
work with us--can agree to work with this committee to
coordinate better diplomatic and law enforcement efforts to
assist parents seeking the return of their children. U.S.
efforts to return kidnapped children who are brought to the
United States are admirable and must be supported, but that
same degree of proficiency and coordination must be brought to
the return of children. There is no excuse for countries like
Sweden, Austria, and Germany to violate existing treaty
obligations that require the return of children.
I have devoted more time than I intended to my opening
statement, but in closing I believe it is appropriate that I
share with you an excerpt of one of hundreds of sad letters I
receive every year. This one is written to me by James Rinaman,
who is a lawyer for the U.S. Army and a father from your home
State of Florida. He has been battling the German legal system
unsuccessfully since 1996 to gain the return of his child. He
wrote to me as follows, and I am quoting him from now on.
My mother raised four children, educated them, and
loves my daughter as her first grandchild. She is
tortured by a complete lack of information about my
daughter, and wakes up in the night to write letters on
her computer to save and give to my daughter. My
parents are now in their sixties. They expected to live
a peaceful, contented life. You might expect such a
glued together outfit would be able to resolve the
problem of my daughter's abduction. Instead, the law
has failed us. Our government has been unable to offer
any resolution. We have never felt so powerless. For a
Government like Germany to scoff at an agreement they
entered into should be viewed for what it is, a slap in
the face. This is something to be expected from Third
World countries, and we expect to have to deal with
them as such.
Now, these sentiments, I think, speak for many other
parents seeking assistance from the U.S. Government in the
return of their children.
Pardon me for taking so long to make a matter of record my
own thoughts on this. Madam Attorney General, welcome again and
you may proceed.
[The prepared statement of Senator Helms follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Jesse Helms
Thank you Madam Attorney General, for being with us this morning. I
am glad to see your first appearance before the Foreign Relations
Committee and the first time in nine years that an Attorney General has
appeared before this Committee. That was in 1989 when Attorney General
Richard Thornburgh visited us.
Your coming here today to discuss the growing problem of
international parental kidnaping is a measurement of your personal
interest in this issue.
Following your testimony, the Committee will then hear from a
number of parents, each of whom will have heartbreaking stories about
how their former spouses unlawfully took their children to foreign
countries, and about the subsequent search to find and seek the return
of their children. I was surprised to learn that these children were
taken not to the closed societies of the Middle East, but to European
countries with democratic and open societies.
The parents testifying today will describe many long and expensive
court baffles in efforts to get their children back. For example,
stories of hiring lawyers in foreign courts that favor their own
citizens despite the existing treaty requirement that the children be
returned; stories of futile or insufficient diplomatic efforts by the
United States; and stories of the failure by the United States to issue
arrest warrants or seek extradition of the former spouses who
unlawfully spirited the children away.
But it needs to be emphasized that this frustration with the
existing process is not uniquely American. Our Committee will hear
testimony today from a well-known British citizen--the wife of the
British Ambassador to the United States, Lady Catherine Meyer. Lady
Meyer has spent the past several years seeking the return of her sons
from their father in Germany.
It would be an ideal circumstance, Madam Attorney General, if we
could have you sitting side-by-side with the distinguished Secretary of
State discussing how the United States can better respond to the
thousands of cases of international parental kidnaping each year.
The question, of course, is what exactly is the problem? For many
years in the United States, the kidnaping of a child by a parent was
considered a family matter--not a criminal matter. Today, all fifty
states have criminal statutes that require the return of any child
taken across state lines by a parent.
During this hearing, parents will recount how this process breaks
down when a child is taken across foreign borders. The Hague Convention
on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction requires that
children be returned to the habitual residence from where the child was
taken. Each year U.S. courts send an estimated 90 percent of kidnaped
children back to foreign countries. The statistics for returns to this
country are not nearly as perfect. Only some 30 percent of kidnaped
children are returned to the United States.
Parents have reported to me a failure by the United States to
initiate vigorously diplomatic and law enforcement tools seeking the
return of their children. These parents report a sense of frustration
with the obviously low priority placed on the return of abducted
children, compared to other diplomatic relations.
Unforunately, in most cases the kidnaping parents often flee U.S.
borders with the children before law enforcement officers are even made
aware of the unlawful act. Even in instances where local law
enforcement is brought in, officers often are not aware of the process
of tracking the kidnapper parent at the international level.
The next step of issuing international arrest warrants for, or
requesting the extradition of; the kidnaping parent can become a maze
of bureaucracy for parents and local law enforcement officials. And
even when they succeed in persuading the Justice Department to seek
extradition, the State Department may refuse to go forward with the
request.
In one case documented by the USIA Crime Alert Program, one U.S.
mother--whose son was abducted by her ex-husband to Prague in the Czech
Republic--had a federal arrest warrant sworn against her ex-husband.
She made repeated efforts to have the FBI contact the U.S. embassy and
the Czech authorities to carry out the warrant.
After months of no response by the FBI, the mother left her job and
went to Prague. In short order she learned that her ex-husband and son
had indeed been in Prague and had recently left--on passports renewed
by the State Department! The State Department claimed to have had no
knowledge of the warrant or the kidnaping.
These are the kinds of cases, Madam Attorney General, that should
not occur and reflect a breakdown in coordination. I hope that you and
I, as well as the Secretary of State, can agree to work with this
Committee to coordinate better diplomatic and law enforcement efforts
to assist parents seeking the return of their children. U.S. efforts to
return kidnaped children who are brought to the United States are
admirable, and must be supported. But that same degree of proficiency
and coordination must be brought to the return of children. There is no
excuse for countries like Sweden, Austria, and Germany to violate
existing treaty obligations that require the return of children.
In closing, I believe it appropriate that I share with you an
excerpt of one of hundreds of sad letters I receive each year on this
subject. This one is written to me by James Rinaman, who is a lawyer
for the U.S. army, and a father from your home state of Florida. He has
been battling the German legal system unsuccessfully since 1996 to gain
the return of his child. He wrote to me as follows:
``My mother raised four children, educated them, and loves my
daughter as her first grandchild. She is tortured by a complete lack of
information about my daughter, and wakes up in the night to write
letters on her computer to save and give to my daughter. My parents are
now in their sixties. They expected to live a peaceful, contented life.
You might expect such a glued together outfit would be able to resolve
the problem of my daughter's abduction. Instead, the law has failed us.
Our government has been unable to offer any resolution. We have never
felt so powerless . . . .For a Government like Germany to scoff at an
agreement they entered into should be seen as a slap in the face. This
is something to be expected from third world countries, and we expect
to have to deal with them as such.''
These sentiments, I suspect, speak for many other parents seeking
assistance from the U.S. Government in the return of their children.
Again, Madam Attorney General, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
Attorney General Reno. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to acknowledge the presence of Mary Ryan, the
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs at the State
Department, who is here representing the State Department,
along with one of her colleagues, Mr. James Schuler.
I just want to tell you, as I told you before, how much I
appreciate your focus on this issue. I think this is one of the
most troubling issues that I know, whether it be a domestic
matter or something on an international scale. Your willingness
to take the time to focus on this issue I think means so much.
I would like to work with you and your staff in the months
ahead to continue to address the problem and not just make it a
one-shot appearance before the committee.
The Chairman. Madam Attorney General, I thank you and it is
a joy to work with you.
Attorney General Reno. Thank you.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Attorney General Reno. I would also like to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for bringing on for hearing the many important law
enforcement treaties. We believe that these treaties will serve
critical United States law enforcement interests through the
extradition and mutual legal assistance mechanisms that they
establish. I understand that we have one more question to
answer and we will get that back to you just as soon as
possible, and I hope that they can be ratified shortly.
The Chairman. Good.
Attorney General Reno. As I indicated, some of the most
difficult, heartbreaking, and just wrenching cases that I know
are child custody cases. As a lawyer in Miami, as the State
Attorney in Miami, I dealt with these cases, and I put a lot of
emphasis on them. Even then, I sometimes could not get justice
done. There is nothing more heartbreaking than to have to tell
a parent that you cannot do anything more under the law.
When there is a kidnapping involved, that makes it all the
more difficult, and when it is on an international scale, it is
an even more difficult task because we have factors to consider
which we may not be able to control due to the sovereignty of
the foreign state.
In a domestic abduction, as you well know, Mr. Chairman,
the civil orders regarding custody are now granted by law full
faith and credit from State to State. Moreover, State and
Federal criminal warrants reach across our interstate
boundaries.
But in the international arena, custody orders entered by
State courts in the United States are not enforceable outside
the United States. Furthermore, State or Federal criminal
warrants reach only as far as our extradition treaties take us
and as far as the domestic law of our extradition treaty
partner permits. In both civil and criminal process in these
international abductions, as in many matters that exceed our
borders, the reach of the United States is ultimately limited
by decisions of separate sovereign states and their independent
judiciaries.
Although the Department of Justice does not play a direct
role in the civil mechanisms for the recovery of children
internationally, we are deeply concerned about this problem and
how we can best support the Department of State which has the
lead in recovering abducted children.
Now, two mechanisms apply in cases of parental abduction:
As you have pointed out, the Hague Convention or other civil
means for recovery of the child, and the second, of course, are
the criminal statutes for prosecution of the offender. But as I
learned full well from my experience as State Attorney,
bringing charges and even successfully completing the charges
so that I get a conviction, does not mean that I am going to
get the child back too.
I would like for just a moment to discuss the civil
process.
The United States has long been a leader in creating
mechanisms for the retrieval of children abducted
internationally. The United States and Canada were instrumental
in the negotiation of the convention on the civil aspects of
international child abduction done at the Hague October 25th,
1980. This Hague Convention provides for the return of a child
abducted internationally by his or her parent pursuant to an
application by the left-behind parent and a subsequent civil
lawsuit filed in the country where the child is located.
According to the convention, a Hague proceeding does not
decide custody. Instead, it should, in most cases, result in an
order for the return of the child so that the parents may
pursue the resolution of custody in the best interests of the
child in a civil court located where the child resided prior to
the abduction. In the first 10 years of its operation,
proceedings under the Hague Convention have resulted, I am
told, in the return of over 2,000 children to the United
States. Today 50 countries are party to the convention.
The Department of State's Office of Children's Issues is
the United States Central Authority for the Administration of
the Hague Convention. The Department of Justice supports this
office in its role as the Central Authority and coordinates
with it when a case has both civil and criminal aspects.
Furthermore, the Department of Justice substantially funds
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. It is
called sometimes NCMEC and sometimes the National Center, and
it does wonderful work for parents and for children in this
country. NCMEC, under a cooperative agreement with the
Department of States, performs certain functions regarding
children who are brought into the United States after having
been abducted.
While the Hague Convention has facilitated the return of
many children and while it is a vast improvement over the lack
of any international instrument whatsoever, it does not
guarantee a satisfactory result in every case. Implementation
of the convention varies among foreign jurisdictions. It
depends sometimes just on the court in the foreign country.
Even in cases in which a left-behind parent has timely filed
the application, hired legal counsel, and literally done
everything exactly right, that parent and our Government cannot
be assured that we can get that child back.
As a prosecutor, I have had the experience of a judge or a
jury returning a decision that I thought was totally wrong, and
I know the frustration. In these Hague cases as well, there are
some decisions which we think and know are wrong. Ultimately
these decisions, both in the United States and abroad, are made
by independent judiciaries in independent sovereign states.
That reality, however, offers little comfort to the parent
who is seeking to recover the child. Sometimes they cannot
locate the child. Sometimes they are frustrated by the court.
In any instance it is an agonizing situation.
The Department of Justice will continue to work with the
Department of State in any way it can to support efforts under
the Hague Convention. Further, in countries that are not party
to the Hague Convention, we will try to assist in locating the
child and providing whatever support we can.
I would now like briefly to discuss the criminal process,
including extradition and the role of the Department of Justice
in the criminal processes.
The terms ``parental kidnapping'' and ``parental
abduction'' have come to encompass a variety of scenarios
involving separation between a child and a left-behind parent
or other person with custodial interests. The fact patterns
range from a wrongful retention or overstay of lawful
visitation or custody to an impulsive taking or to a kidnapping
involving premeditated fraud or violence. Often, particularly
in wrongful retentions or overstays, the whereabouts of the
parent and child are known. Other cases involve layers of false
identification, false passports, and a helpful underground.
The Department of Justice is charged with the investigation
and prosecution of crimes under the International Parental
Kidnaping Crime Act of 1993. We are involved in the location
and apprehension of abducting parents charged with State or
local offenses who are also subject of a Federal warrant for
unlawful flight to avoid prosecution, and with the Department
of State, we are responsible for securing the extradition of
offenders charged under either State or Federal law.
Most parental kidnapping or interference with custody cases
are charged under State law. By comparison, the number of
Federal prosecutions involving these offenses is much smaller.
At this time, our U.S. Attorneys' offices have 26 open cases
involving parental kidnapping and 66 matters pending
investigation, the FBI reports having opened 260 cases under
the act since its enactment in 1993. In addition, from 1994 to
1998, the FBI opened over 800 cases to assist in locating
abductors charged under State and local statutes.
As I mentioned at the outset, I want to make clear that
criminal prosecution and the apprehension of the abductor does
not necessarily result in the recovery of the child. Indeed,
the Congress also recognized that one of the facts that should
be considered when determining how to proceed, was that the
procedure under the Hague Convention should be the option of
first choice for a parent who seeks the return of a child.
Now, two recent Federal cases illustrate the point that I
am trying to make. In both the Al-Ahmad prosecution in the
District of Colorado and the Amer prosecution in the Eastern
District of New York, Federal prosecutors apprehended and
obtained convictions against the abducting parent. However, in
both cases, the children remain in the Middle East with
extended family while the abductor serves the sentence imposed.
Again, in both these cases, the Department of State endeavors
to ascertain the welfare and whereabouts of the child and to
assist the parent in making sure that the child is OK, but it
is not a perfect solution.
Problems with extradition may be another reason that
criminal cases are not pursued. Extradition is not an option in
all parental kidnapping cases. Many older ``list'' style
extradition treaties, treaties from an era when abduction of a
child by his or her parent was not recognized as a crime, as
you noted earlier, are not interpreted to encompass this
offense. Further, some countries will not extradite their
nationals. Finally, some countries do not recognize such
abduction as a crime at all.
With the help of this committee, we can make some real
progress I think in addressing these problems. The extradition
treaties pending before the committee will allow extradition
for parental kidnapping whenever both countries recognize the
offense as a crime. This committee--and I thank you for it--
also took the lead in crafting legislation, Senate 1266, to
address the problem of the limited interpretation of terms
under the older ``list'' treaties. We appreciate your continued
support in ensuring that our extradition treaties will
encompass the offense of parental kidnapping to the fullest
extent possible.
But in addition to enforcement efforts, the Department of
Justice is supporting the recovery of children internationally
on a program basis. Our Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, which we call OJJDP, serves a larger
agenda involving the welfare of missing and exploited children.
As I previously noted, the Department of Justice funds many
activities of the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children. These activities include training law enforcement,
prosecutors, and judges on domestic missing children cases,
research projects, and the distribution of information
regarding the prevention and response to parental abductions.
Through the funding by OJJDP, the State Department relies
on the Center to handle most of the issues relating to those
incoming abduction cases.
In addition, OJJDP and our Office for Victims of Crime have
established a fund to assist parents with travel costs when
they recover their children. These funds are administered by
OJJDP in coordination with the National Center. Beginning this
year, a representative of the Office for Victims of Crime will
be physically located at the Department of State to assist that
Department with United States citizens who are victims of crime
overseas, including these children who are the victims of an
international parent kidnapping. But, Mr. Chairman, I am the
first person to tell you, as I told you at the outset, that
there is much more to do.
In June 1997, OJJDP, in conjunction with the National
Center, held a parents focus group to identify issues and needs
in this area. I have found from long ago that it is far better
to listen to the people who have to struggle with the system
rather than to think that we know it all. We obtained input and
recommendation from State and local law enforcement agencies to
improve the handling and response to international abduction
through a number of research efforts.
Based on this, in January 1998, we created an interagency
committee to specifically focus on international parental
kidnapping and how we can better respond to the victims in
these cases, both the left-behind parent and the child. The
committee has and is receiving input from Federal, State, and
local law enforcement agencies in order to make recommendations
to improve the services and system response to parents. As part
of this effort, committee members have participated in
additional parent focus groups, attended working group
meetings, and listened directly to the questions and the needs
of left-behind parents. The work of this committee is ongoing.
It is addressing the full range of issues from efforts to
educate lawyers, prosecutors, law enforcement, and judges on
the Hague Convention and on international child abduction cases
through detection and recovery, to prosecution and punishment.
The interchange to date has helped in coordination of the many
agencies which may need to be involved in any given case.
Now, I expect a report on the committee's activities and
recommendations to improve services and responses for parents.
I expect that report right after the first of the year, and we
will look forward to sharing it with you and working with you
in that effort.
Among the many issues we are addressing is the functioning
of the Hague Convention. While all agree that this treaty is a
valuable tool, we are committed to making sure it works even
more effectively. This task rests primarily with the State
Department, but the Justice Department can and will assist.
I expect the report, when we receive it right after the
first of the year, to address the following and make
recommendations with respect to the following.
First, ways in which the Justice Department through OJC and
OJJDP can expand outreach and education programs to
prosecutors, judges, and social services on international
parental kidnapping. The police officer in Miami does not know
what to do when a parent calls. The prosecutor gets confused
where they go from the Department of Justice to the State
Department. We have got to make sure that we get the message
out in clear and concise ways.
Second, I expect it to address ways in which we can manage
these cases more effectively on an interagency basis and
perhaps develop a protocol that can serve as a model.
Third, I expect it to address ways in which we can improve
our systems for keeping complete and accurate statistics and
for following the cases so that they do not fall between the
cracks.
Fourth, together with the State Department, we will be
reviewing how best to focus our efforts abroad. Over half of
all family abductions are to countries not party to the Hague
Convention. We need to consider whether there are other
countries we should encourage to join the convention. United
States law enforcement officials located overseas, particularly
our FBI legal attaches, can help to emphasize to their foreign
colleagues the seriousness with which the United States takes
these cases and the need for effective responses to locating
the children and the abducting parents.
The fifth report that I expect is what can we do in terms
of preventing the problem in the first place. I would like to
hear from people as to how--and I expect the committee has
already heard information on how--foreign courts take a State
order and construe it one way when, if the order had been
framed in a certain way, we might have had a stronger case
before that foreign court.
I want to make sure that the dissemination of information
regarding legal and practical steps to help prevent abductions
can be made available on a regular basis through the Internet
and through other resources.
Most importantly, we had an experience this year that I
think will serve us well here. Through the National Center, we
developed what we called a Family Survival Guide for Parents of
Missing Children. I got to know a number of parents whose
children were missing and some were recovered. Some were
tragically found dead. This was not in the international
kidnapping context. I listened to them and I thought we can do
so much, but people were a step ahead of me. They were already
involving these parents in developing a manual of questions and
answers and feelings and recommendations as to how parents
cope. This Family Survival Guide for Parents of Missing
Children became probably the most popular publication the
Department of Justice has ever put out.
I would like to work with the State Department, with
parents, with State and local law enforcement to review what
has been done by the State Department and to publish an
international parental abduction guide that involves the
parents and see if we cannot get this out in a way that can be
readily available on the Internet, at police departments, in
prosecutors offices, at local libraries. The first effort with
missing children was successful, and I think that this will be
very important.
Now, that is going to be what I get from the committee.
Secretary Albright and I have already talked, and we have
asked our senior policy staff to review several policy issues
regarding international child abduction. One issue we want to
review, together with OMB, is the level of resources we can and
should be devoting to these cases. They are critically
important cases, and we have got to address the issue.
I want to talk with Director Frieh and follow up on issues
with respect to the LEGATT's and what they are doing in terms
of assisting and locating the child. What can we do better? How
can we better allocate resources to ensure that there is a full
performance in this area?
We also need to explore making better use of diplomatic
initiatives and how we at Justice can support State in these
efforts. But one thing I have learned, when the judge rules,
the diplomat often has their hands tied, and so we have got
again to recognize that there is no perfect solution to the
problem.
We need to review at a senior level the recommendations
made by the committee to us about what the role of the National
Center should be. Perhaps the National Center can do more in
terms of assisting. How can we work together to achieve that?
Because they have done so much in terms of dealing with
children coming into the United States.
We are committed to doing everything that we can and we
would like to work with the committee to do it. I would only
say the most wonderful cases in the world are when the child
comes home. The saddest cases are when you cannot get the child
home. There is no perfect answer, but I will work with you
every way I can to make sure that we have done all that can be
expected of us to do the right thing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for focusing on this issue and for
giving me the opportunity to share thoughts with you.
[The prepared statement of Attorney General Reno follows:]
Prepared Statement of Janet Reno
i. introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee:
I am pleased to appear before the committee today to address the
important topic of international parental kidnapping. Mr. Chairman, I
want you to know how much I appreciate your focus on this issue for it
is so important that we do everything we reasonably can to protect our
children.
I would also like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of
the committee for going forward on the recent hearing regarding the
many important law enforcement treaties pending before you. We believe
that these treaties will serve critical United States law enforcement
interests through the extradition and mutual legal assistance
mechanisms they establish. Many of those treaties can also serve us in
the topic before you today, the international abduction of a child by
his or her parent. I understand the State Department has transmitted
the answers to your follow-up questions, and we hope that the Senate
will ratify these treaties as soon as possible.
Some of the most difficult and critical cases our legal system
faces are those involving the custody and welfare of a child. When a
parent takes the drastic measure of removing a child away from the
other parent, the cases become more complex and heartbreaking.
Addressing these matters in the international arena is usually an
even more difficult task because we have factors to consider which we
may not be able to control, due to the sovereignty of foreign states.
In a domestic abduction of a child by his or her parent, civil orders
regarding custody are now by law granted full faith and credit from
state to state. Moreover, State and Federal criminal warrants reach
across our interstate boundaries.
In the international arena, custody orders entered by State courts
in the United States are not enforceable outside of the United States
furthermore, State or Federal criminal warrants reach only as far as
our extradition treaties take us and as far as the domestic law of our
extradition treaty partner permits. In both civil and criminal process
in these international abductions, as in many matters that exceed our
borders, the reach of the United States is ultimately limited by
decisions of separate sovereign states and their independent
judiciaries.
Although the Department of Justice does not play a direct role in
the civil mechanisms for the recovery of children internationally, we
are deeply concerned about this problem and how we can best support the
Department of State, which has the lead in recovering abducted
children. Thus I want to say a few words about the civil mechanisms for
child recovery, before moving to the Justice Department's enforcement
and programmatic role in international abduction cases.
ii. civil recovery
The United States has long been a leader in creating mechanisms for
the retrieval of children abducted internationally. The United States
and Canada were instrumental in the negotiation of the convention on
the civil aspects of international child abduction, done at the Hague,
October 25, 1980 (``Hague Convention''.) This ``Hague Convention''
provides for the return of a child abducted internationally by his or
her parent, pursuant to an application by the left-behind parent and a
subsequent civil lawsuit filed in the country where the child is
located.
According to the convention, a ``Hague proceeding'' does not decide
custody; instead, it should, in most cases, result in an order for the
``return'' of the child so that the parents may pursue the resolution
of custody and the best interests of the child in a civil court located
where the child resided prior to the abduction. In the first ten years
of its operation, proceedings under the Hague Convention have resulted
in the return of over 2000 children to the United States. Today, 50
countries are party to the convention.
The Department of State's Office of Children's Issues is the United
States' central authority for the administration of the Hague
Convention. The Department of Justice supports this office in its role
as the central authority, and coordinates with it when a case has both
civil and criminal aspects. Further, the Department of Justice
substantially funds the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children (``NCMEC'' or ``The National Center''). The National Center,
under a cooperative agreement with the Department of State, performs
certain functions regarding cases of children ``abducted to'' the
United States.
While the Hague Convention has facilitated the return of many
children to the United States, and while it is a vast improvement over
the lack of any international instrument whatsoever, it does not
guarantee a satisfactory result in every case for every parent.
Implementation of the convention varies among foreign jurisdictions.
Even in cases in which a left-behind parent has timely filed an
application, hired legal counsel, and literally done everything
``right,'' that parent, and the United States, may be bitterly
disappointed with the result in a particular case.
As a prosecutor, I have had the experience of a judge or jury
returning a decision with which I did not agree, which I believed was
the wrong decision. In these Hague cases, as well, there may be some
decisions which we think are wrong. Ultimately these decisions, both in
the United States and abroad, are made by independent judiciaries in
independent sovereign states.
That reality, however, offers little comfort to the left-behind
parents who have suffered the frustration and anguish of losing contact
with a beloved child--either in situations in which the whereabouts of
the child are unknown, or in situations in which the whereabouts are
known, but access is limited or denied entirely. My heart goes out to
those parents.
The Department of Justice will continue to work with the Department
of State in any way it can to support efforts under the Hague
Convention. Further, in countries that are not party to the Hague
Convention, our resources are, there too, committed to assist these
children and the left-behind United States parents.
iii. justice efforts; criminal processes and extradition; justice
programs
I would now like to briefly outline the Justice Department's role
in these difficult cases.
The terms ``parental kidnaping'' and ``parental abduction'' have
come to encompass a variety of scenarios involving separation between a
child and a left-behind parent or other person with custodial
interests. The fact patterns range from a ``wrongful retention'' or
``overstay'' of lawful visitation or custody, to an impulsive taking,
to a kidnaping involving premeditated fraud or violence. Often,
particularly in wrongful retentions or overstays, the whereabouts of
the parent and child are known; other cases involve layers of false
identification, false passports and a helpful ``underground.''
In addressing these cases of parental abduction, two mechanisms can
be called upon for two separate but related ends: First, the Hague
Convention or other civil means for recovery of the child; and, second,
criminal statutes for prosecution of the offender.
The Department of Justice can have a more direct role on the
criminal side. We are the agency charged with the investigation and
prosecution of crimes under the International Parental Kidnaping Crime
Act of 1993 (IPKCA); we are involved in the location and apprehension
of abducting parents charged with State or local offenses who are also
subject of a Federal warrant for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution;
and, with the Department of State, we are responsible for securing the
extradition of offenders charged under either State or Federal law.
Most parental kidnaping or interference with custody cases are
charged under State law. By comparison, the number of Federal
prosecutions involving these offenses is much smaller. At this time,
our United States Attorneys' Offices have 26 open cases involving
parental kidnaping and 66 matters pending investigation. The FBI
reports having opened 260 cases under the Federal International
Parental Kidnaping Crime Act (IPKCA) since its enactment in 1993 in
addition, from 1994 to 1998, the FBI opened over 800 cases to assist in
locating abductors charged under State and local statutes.
I want to make clear that the criminal prosecution and apprehension
of any abductor does not necessarily result in the recovery of the
child. Indeed, the Congress, when it enacted the Federal Parental
Kidnaping Statute, noted that the Hague Convention ought to remain the
preferred means for child recovery.
Two recent Federal cases illustrate this point. In both the Al-
Ahmad prosecution in the District of Colorado and the Amer prosecution
in the Eastern District of New York, Federal prosecutors apprehended
and obtained convictions against the abducting parent. However, in both
cases, the children remain in the middle east with extended family
while the abductor serves the sentence imposed. Again, in both these
cases, the Department of State endeavors to ascertain the welfare and
whereabouts of the children and to assist those left behind.
Problems with extradition may be another reason that criminal cases
are not pursued. Extradition is not an option in all parental kidnaping
cases. Many older ``list'' style extradition treaties--treaties from an
era when abduction of a child by his or her parent was not recognized
as a crime--are not interpreted to encompass this offense. Further,
some countries will not extradite their nationals. Finally, some
countries do not recognize such an abduction as a crime at all.
With the help of this committee, we can make progress in addressing
these problems. The extradition treaties pending before the committee
will allow for extradition for parental kidnaping whenever both
countries recognize the offense as a crime. This committee also took
the lead in crafting legislation--S.1266--to address the problem of the
limited interpretation of terms under our older ``list'' treaties. We
appreciate your continued support in ensuring that our extradition
treaties will encompass the offense of parental kidnaping to the
fullest extent possible.
In addition to enforcement efforts, the Department of Justice
supports the recovery of children internationally on a programmatic
basis. Our Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, known
as OJJDP, serves a larger agenda involving the welfare of missing and
exploited children, including funding many activities of the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children. OJJDP funds training of law
enforcement, prosecutors, and judges on domestic missing children
cases, research projects, and the distribution of information regarding
the prevention of and response to parental abductions.
In addition, OJJDP and the Office for Victims of Crime have
established a fund to assist parents with travel costs when they
recover their children. These funds are administered by OJJDP in
coordination with the National Center and the Office of Children's
Issues. Beginning this year, a representative of the office of victims
of crime will be physically located at the Department of State, to
assist that Department with United States citizens who are victims of
crime overseas, including these children.
iv. interagency efforts
Mr. Chairman, we have been working hard to address concerns in this
area. In June 1997, OJJDP in conjunction with the National Center held
a parents focus group to identify issues and needs in this area. We
obtained input and recommendations from State and local law enforcement
agencies to improve the handling and response to international
abduction cases through a number of research, training, and technical
assistance efforts.
In January 1998, we also created an interagency committee to
specifically focus on international parental kidnaping and how we can
better respond to the victims in these cases, both the left-behind
parent and the abducted child. The committee has received input from
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in order to make
recommendations to improve the services and system response to parents.
As part of this effort committee members have participated in parent
focus groups, attended working group meetings, and listened directly to
the questions and needs of left-behind parents. The work of this
interagency committee is ongoing and is addressing the full range of
issues, from efforts to educate lawyers, prosecutors, law enforcement
and judges on the Hague Convention and international child abduction
cases, through detection and recovery, to prosecution and punishment.
The interchange to date has helped in coordination of the many
agencies--local, State, and Federal--which may need to be involved in
any given case. A report on the committee's activities and
recommendations to improve services and response to parents affected by
international abductions is expected after the first of next year.
I strongly believe that assistance and guidance would be of great
benefit both to law enforcement personnel who must quickly respond
these cases as well as to left-behind parents in international
abduction cases.
Therefore, I will be asking through the interagency committee that
OJJDP, the Department of State, and other entities, review the valuable
international parental child abduction guide recently re-issued by the
Department of State. The goal of this review is to ensure that in its
next publication it is more user friendly and includes information
provided by the parents themselves. I will also ask the committee to
explore ways to increase the circulation of this guide. I have learned
how valuable this type of information can be to desperate parents.
OJJDP's family survival guide for parents of missing children, because
of its content, has been one of the most popular documents ever
produced by the Department of Justice. The International Parental Child
Abduction Guide, jointly produced by the Justice and State Departments,
in conjunction with parents, Federal, State and local law enforcement
agencies, and other organizations concerned with missing children, can
be a vital resource for a parent whose child has been removed from the
United States.
v. areas for renewed efforts
While I have already described efforts that are ongoing in this
area, the Justice and State Departments are, collectively, taking a
hard look at what more we can do. I have discussed this with Secretary
Albright.
Among the many issues we are addressing is the functioning of the
Hague Convention. While all agree that this treaty is a valuable tool
for the recovery of children, we are committed to making sure it works
even more effectively. This task rests primarily with the Department of
State. However, the Justice Department can assist in the education and
training of law enforcement agents, prosecutors, practitioners and
judges, all of whom must become more familiar with the Hague
Convention. The Office of Justice Programs and OJJDP are examining how
we could expand outreach and education programs to train law
enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and social services on international
parental kidnaping.
Together with the Department of State, we are reviewing how best to
focus our efforts abroad. Over half of all family abductions are to
countries not party to the Hague Convention. We need to consider
whether there are other countries we should encourage to join the
convention. United States law enforcement officials located overseas,
particularly our FBI legal attaches, can help to emphasize to their
foreign colleagues the seriousness with which the United States takes
these cases, and the need for effective responses in locating the
children and the abducting parents.
Another area for attention is prevention. Efforts made in the State
and local jurisdictions as to the type of orders entered regarding
custody, the dissemination of information regarding legal and practical
steps to help prevent abductions, as well as additional measures, such
as surrender to the family court of both U.S. and foreign travel
documents for the children, will well serve as a deterrent to these
abductions.
Also, we need to manage these cases more effectively on an
interagency basis and explore ways to improve our systems for keeping
complete and accurate statistics. State Department personnel, Federal
and State prosecutors and investigators, and child welfare agencies
need to work together and be better informed, so we make timely and
effective decisions about the civil and criminal remedies in these
cases, and in order to better respond to the left-behind parent.
Moreover, coordination at a working level must be supported by
coordination at a policy level. Secretary Albright and I have asked our
senior policy staff to review several policy issues regarding
international child abduction. One issue we want to review--together
with O.M.B. if appropriate--is the level of resources we can and should
be devoting to these cases. We also need to explore making better use
of diplomatic initiatives and how we at Justice can support State in
these efforts. We also need to review, at a senior level, the role of
the national center and, in particular, current suggestions to expand
its role in prevention, case management, case processing, and support
to left-behind parents.
vi. conclusion
These cases present difficult challenges. The Justice Department is
committed to continue and to improve its partnership with the
Department of State, and with State and local authorities, to insure
that every case is addressed effectively. While there can be no
guarantees we will have the desired result in every case, we must
assure that we have done our best to recover children wrongfully
separated from their parents, and to enforce the laws and lawful orders
of our courts.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee
concerning this most important topic.
The Chairman. Madam Attorney General, I have been around
the Senate for a while. I have heard a lot of witnesses on
various subjects, but I will say to the Senator from Virginia
who has just joined us, Senator Robb, that I have never had one
who was more comprehensive in not only discussing the problem,
but laying out and identifying in detail what she intends to do
about the problem. That is sort of a novelty around this place.
Madam Attorney General, I just appreciate so much your coming.
Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman, do not give me any
credit until we get something done.
The Chairman. Who was it said a journey of a thousand miles
has to start with the first step? You are there and then some.
We have been joined by the distinguished Ranking Member,
Senator Biden, and I will welcome him and suggest that we will
be glad to hear from him.
Senator Biden. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I was down on the
floor that the Attorney General is very accustomed to being in,
the Judiciary Committee. We had our executive committee meeting
down there. So, I will just ask my statement be placed in the
record.
If you were about to excuse the Attorney General, I will
not have her stay on my behalf because I can drop the questions
I have--
The Chairman. I wish you could have heard her statement. I
know you will read it.
But we will be glad to hear from you on this.
Senator Biden. No, no. I will not take the committee's
time, but I would ask unanimous consent my statement be placed
in the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Biden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Biden
Mr. Chairman, I commend you for focusing attention on the issue of
international parental abduction.
The act of taking a child in violation of a custodial order--
whether across States' lines or across international borders--is a
heinous crime which is extremely heart-wrenching for the parent left
behind and for the child or children affected.
There are two means of addressing the problem. The first is for a
parent to seek a civil remedy through a foreign court.
Ten years ago, the United States became party to the ``Hague
Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction,'' a
fancy name for a treaty which imposes an obligation on nations party to
it to return a child to the rightful custodial parent, subject to
certain limitations and exceptions.
After a decade of experience, it is timely for the Committee to
review the operation of the treaty, although I am somewhat mystified
why we are not hearing from the Department of State on that aspect of
the issue.
The second means of addressing the issue (though it does not
guarantee the return of the child) is to pursue the perpetrator--the
act of parental abduction is a crime in every State, and it is a
federal crime to take or retain a child outside of the country in
violation of a custody order.
In the latter case, a criminal suspect may be extradited--provided,
of course, that we have a bilateral extradition treaty with the country
where the suspect may be found.
Last year, this Committee took a small but important step in
approving legislation, S. 1266--the ``Extradition Treaties
Interpretation Act''--which will authorize the Executive to utilize
older extradition treaties to cover this crime. Unfortunately, the bill
has languished in the other body, for reasons I cannot fathom, and so I
hope the attention to this issue here today will spur positive action
on that legislation.
I welcome the Attorney General and our witnesses and look forward
to their testimony.
Senator Biden. I will say how good it is to see the
General. Do not scare us again, OK?
The Chairman. Senator Robb.
Senator Robb. Mr. Chairman, I thank you.
I am actually playing hooky from both the Armed Services
Committee where we are considering the testimony of the
Secretary of Energy on nuclear matters and the Intelligence
Committee where we are discussing covert action matters.
But the hearing, the topic, and particularly the witness
interested me, and I wanted to stop by for just a minute. I
agree fully with the chairman's assessment of that portion of
the Attorney General's testimony that I heard and the obvious
interest and commitment to resolving a very vexing challenge
for the international community is certainly very evident from
the--I do not like to use the word ``passion,'' but the
commitment to attempting to deal with this particular issue. I
join the chairman in saying to the Attorney General thank you
for a very comprehensive review and for her obvious dedication
to results, not just rhetoric.
The Chairman. Very good.
Senator Biden. If you have answered this question, General,
please, I will read it in the record. But how many cases, if
you know, do you have pending now that this legislation we are
talking about would affect? Do you have any idea of that?
Attorney General Reno. Which legislation are you talking
about? The Kidnapping Act or the Hague Convention?
Senator Biden. The interpretation bill, S. 1266, The
Extradition Treaties Implementation Act.
Attorney General Reno. Senator, I do not have the numbers
on that, but we will furnish that to you. It is enough so that
it causes me problems, and when I go to our executive working
group meeting with prosecutors and others, they are fussing at
me as to why we have not done more.
Senator Biden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Now, let me review your testimony and try to
fit in my own understanding, such as it is, of the enormity of
the problem.
Your agency handles all of the law enforcement aspects,
such as Federal arrest warrants and initiating extradition
requests. That is correct, is it not?
Attorney General Reno. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Now, the State Department, I am informed,
tracks civil law requests under the Convention on Child
Abduction, and the Center for Missing and Exploited Children,
with a large grant from the Justice Department, which you
mentioned, tracks cases of parents who abduct children to the
United States.
Now, it seems to me that one of the most frustrating
aspects of this problem is fragmentation, and I think you
emphasized that very adequately in your statement. Do I gather
that you would support a consolidation of these activities, all
of them, into the Justice Department?
Attorney General Reno. I am going to wait and see what the
committee recommends. I would not support it now and let me
tell you why. If--just if--somebody decided that was the right
thing to do and we took the applications and worked with the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children on the
outgoing cases and then handled the incoming cases, we would
still have to rely a very great deal on the missions around the
world. I can tell you from my own experience in criminal cases
where I have to rely on the State Department and its missions
around the world to try to find somebody or make contact or
nudge a minister of justice a bit, they can be absolutely
invaluable. So, no matter where you put it, Mr. Chairman, the
two Departments are going to have to work together, and I think
the best thing to do is to look at how we can really work
together so it is a seamless process. But I want to see what
the committee recommends.
The Chairman. Fair enough. I think that is a wise course.
Staff has provided something I did not know. They say that
California has implemented a system with some success where the
civil and criminal aspects of parental kidnapping are unified.
Is this some sort of model for a beginning of how to handle our
problems?
Attorney General Reno. I have heard of the California
system. I have never explored it. Let me explore it and let me
make sure that the working interagency committee has the
information concerning it.
The Chairman. Last year Joe Biden and I cosponsored a bill,
as you mentioned, 1266, the Extradition Treaties Interpretation
Act of 1997, which would include parental kidnapping as an
extraditable offense under our existing extradition treaties.
Now, this bill has languished in the House since it was passed
unanimously by the Senate. I think I know the answer to this.
Would you support this legislation?
Attorney General Reno. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, and we are
very grateful to you for your leadership in pushing it.
The Chairman. Well, I know you have a busy schedule.
Everybody on this committee is probably going to ask permission
to file a written question or so with you. I may have one or
two myself.
Attorney General Reno. We would be happy to, and not just
at this time. If you have any questions--I have been working
with Senator DeWine, and it is helpful for us to know about
problem cases so we can address issues of what can be done
better. After meeting with him, I have gone back and looked at
what we can do to be more effective in terms of determining
whether the case should be prosecuted federally or in the State
court. We just welcome and continuing suggestions.
The Chairman. Good.
Mike, first I want to ask your forgiveness for not seeing
you when you came in. Second, I am going to insist that you ask
a question or make a comment.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DEWINE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
OHIO
Senator Dewine. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank you for
allowing me to sit with the committee. I arrived late. I was
with Senator Biden. He had me detained in the Judiciary
Committee. So, we were together there.
But I want to thank you for holding a hearing on what I
think is a very important issue. This issue came to my
attention I guess the same way a lot of things come to our
attention as Senators, and that is, we have constituents who
call us or write us who have specific problems. This is a
problem that the Attorney General and I have talked about, in
fact, talked about just last week, that I think we are just
seeing the tip of the iceberg. It is estimated--I looked at the
testimony--a thousand of these potential cases. My guess is
there may be many, many more that we are just not hearing
about. But with the increase in international marriages--we
know that half of all marriages in this country, at least,
break up. We just know statistically that this is going to
continue to be a major problem, and it is a problem that every
Senator is going to see in his or her constituency in his or
her State. There is nothing sadder than these cases. These are
just heart-wrenching cases.
So, I look forward, Attorney General, to working with you,
and Mr. Chairman, just appreciate your interest in this in
holding this hearing today.
Senator Biden. Mr. Chairman, may I make one brief
observation? One of the reasons why the Attorney General is
probably happy to be here and probably does not want to leave
is this is a lot friendlier than another committee, is it not?
Senator Biden. We have not asked you any questions about
those other subjects. You are welcome to stay, Janet. I realize
this may be a momentary safe haven for you to talk about this.
In case you are wondering why she is smiling so much, it is not
the Judiciary Committee. That is why she is smiling.
Attorney General Reno. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Yes, ma'am.
Attorney General Reno. The reason I am so happy to be here
is because this is an area where everybody can work together in
a bipartisan way.
Let me just add two thoughts to the general problem.
Nothing frustrated me as much as to have somebody commit a
murder in Dade County, flee to another country, the country of
which he was a national, and be told that that country would
not extradite its national, and if I wanted to prosecute, I
would have to send witnesses and everybody down to the country.
Well, that has created one of the major issues for me,
which is if we are going to live in a world of trust, if we are
going to have trade agreements and other arrangements with
people, then we are going to have to trust each other enough to
recognize that any case should presumptively be tried in the
place where the crime was committed. You should not ask a child
who has been molested to go a thousand miles away to prosecute.
It is just wrong. Now, there are certain situations where there
is a change of venue even in our country, but our great
presumption is in favor of prosecuting the crime where it took
place.
So, one of the things that I have engaged in is a
continuing campaign with my colleagues, the ministers of
justice, to say, look, let us work this out so that we build a
world based on trust and that everybody knows there is no safe
place to hide. This is important here because some of these
cases are stymied because the country where the child is and
the parent is will not extradite the parent because the parent
is a national of that country.
We have made some progress. Sometimes I think it is four
steps forward and five steps back, but it has been a slow
process. I think we would like to work with the committee in
pursuing that as much as we can.
The second issue is a problem I want to point out. One of
the reasons that people do not sometimes get involved in this
in State and local jurisdictions is that they will not seek an
extradition because they cannot pay for it, or if they seek the
extradition, they are worried that once the child is here, the
people will not want to prosecute.
I would like to explore legislation that would authorize
the Attorney General to designate funds to defray expenses
incurred by State and local jurisdictions in an extraordinarily
limited number of cases, but important cases that go to very
significant problems like this. This tool would be helpful, but
it is not intended to shift the entire burden. It is just
attempting to create a proper balance between the Federal
system and the State system.
Again, child custody is basically a State issue under our
Federal system. The Federal system should not be impaired
because we cannot afford it. So, Senator DeWine and I had
talked about it. Should more cases be brought in Federal court?
Is that the best way to do it? I would like to continue to
explore with you what the appropriate balance is between the
Federal and State side and how that is affected by resources
and what the final answer should be.
The Chairman. Do you have any comments, Senator Biden?
Senator Biden. I do not.
The Chairman. Well, one of the things that bothers me most
is that so often the governments that refuse to cooperate are
the ones that have signed treaties saying that they would
cooperate. I guess I learned from Sam Ervin who learned from
Will Rogers that the United States never lost a war up until
that time or won a treaty. So, maybe we better look at the
treaties a little bit that we sign around this place instead of
race horsing them through the Senate with a two-thirds vote.
But thank you, ma'am, for coming.
Attorney General Reno. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Anytime you need a safe haven, you come on up
here.
Attorney General Reno. Thank you, sir. I may be calling on
you.
The Chairman. The second panel, distinguished citizens all,
Mr. Thomas R. Sylvester of Cincinnati, Thomas Johnson of
Alexandria, Virginia; Lady Catherine I. Meyer of the British
Embassy in Washington; and Mr. Paul Marinkovich of Simi Valley,
California. If you gentlemen and lady will take your seats, we
will proceed.
My southern upbringing compels me to say, ladies first, and
so we will recognize you, Lady Meyer, and welcome you to the
committee.
STATEMENT OF LADY CATHERINE I. MEYER, BRITISH EMBASSY,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Lady Meyer. Sir, I have prepared a proper statement that I
have written, and I just wanted to do a short summary.
Sir, my name is Catherine Meyer and I am a French and
British citizen. I was married to a German citizen in 1986. We
separated in 1992. We had a contractual agreement by which I
had custody of the children and the children would visit their
father during the holidays.
We live in London. Everything works well. In 1994, I sent
the children on holidays, and 4 days before they are due back I
receive a letter from my ex-husband saying, I am not sending
them back.
Well, I was, like most people in my situation, completely
distraught. I had never heard about child abduction within
democratic societies. I only heard of the Bahti Makhmudi case.
Suddenly I was faced with losing my children and having to
fight through a legal system in my own country. I had actually
no idea of the law before. I had to fight in Germany to try and
seek the return of my children.
So, this took some time. There were court orders made in
Britain for the immediate return of the children who were
illegally retained in Germany under Article 3 of the Hague
Convention.
We had a first hearing in Germany. About a month later, the
German courts initially ordered the return of the children, but
my ex-husband asked for half an hour to say good-bye to the
children. My lawyers naively agreed and instead of returning
the children, he put the children in a car and vanished.
A month and a half later, there was an appeal hearing in
Germany, by which time I had not seen my children for 4 months.
In the appeal hearing, my ex-husband called the Article 13,
which is the only exception in the Hague Convention, as a
defense for not returning the children.
One of the problems in this Hague Convention is actually
this exception clause because once you have an exception, it
basically defies the rule. Unfortunately, my studies of all the
cases of some countries that have not returned children, it was
always on the basis of Article 13b, which is supposedly the
will of the children. So, on this basis my children were not
returned.
What I really want to say now is that since 1994 I have
been fighting very hard to try and first have the return of my
children. Then I have tried simply just to see my children. My
children were taken away 4 and a half years ago. In 4 and a
half years, I have never seen my children on my own. In 4 and a
half years, I have spent 11 hours with my children, locked in a
secluded house under the supervision of a third party. My last
visit was in February. The visit before that was 2 years ago.
It is a very, very difficult thing to live with.
So, one of the major, major issues about this Hague
Convention--we had recently the forum in Washington to try and
help parents like me try and make the Hague Convention work
better because, as we have discovered, it is a good piece of
legislation, but it was written 18 years ago. Many things have
changed in 18 years, and we also have discovered that whereas
some countries abide by the spirit of the convention, other
countries really do not. There are some countries that are
specific problems and they do not return children.
Then comes the added additional problem, as I was just
saying, can we just even see our children. I think all of us
here basically all have our own stories which is in essence
very similar, and whether it is a father or whether it is a
mother, I find that in modern society to be denied access to
your children is quite outrageous.
So, I call very strongly and I really appreciate that we
are here to testify because I find this is a huge issue. I
realized it was a huge issue when I started fighting. I had
some articles in the British and the French press, and I
started being approached by other parents. I realized this is
enormous, and a lot of parents do not know where to go. They do
not know how to get a lawyer. They do not have enough money.
So, the numbers that we have, which NCMEC talks about a
thousand cases, probably two and a half children per case--so,
let us say 2,500 cases per annum of U.S. children taken abroad
to Hague Convention countries. I think those figures do not
show the reality. I think the real figures are tens of
thousands.
[The prepared statement of Lady Meyer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lady Catherine Meyer
My paper is drawn from my personal tragedy and my knowledge of the
situation in Britain and in Germany.
my case
In 1984, I married a German doctor, Hans-Peter Volkmann, in London
and our first son, Alexander, was born a year later. Volkmann then
decided that we should move to Germany for two years. I abandoned my
city career to follow my husband, and our second son, Constantin, was
born in 1987. But our marriage broke up and in 1992 we legally
separated: the children would live with their mother in London and
visit their father during their school holidays.
At first, all worked well. The children adapted quickly to their
London life. They continued their schooling at the French Lycee and
spent holidays with their father in Germany. I struggled to rebuild my
career in the city of London so that I could support my children. By
19941 had managed to obtain a senior position in a Bank and to buy a
comfortable apartment for the three of us.
On 6 July 1994, the children left for their summer holidays.
Without warning, four days before they were due to return to London,
their father announced that he was not sending them back to England. He
then disappeared with the boys.
I had no choice but to apply to the English courts. The High Court
of England & Wales ruled that the ``retention of the children is
illegal'' and ordered their ``immediate return'' to Britain under the
terms of the Hague Convention. Initially, a local German court upheld
the English decision. But Volkmann requested half an hour to say good-
bye to the boys. My lawyers naively agreed. Taking advantage of this,
and in defiance of the court order, Volkmann bundled the boys into a
car and vanished. The local police were unwilling to help and by the
time Court bailiffs were located, it was too late.
The following day, Volkmann lodged an ``ex-parte'' (i.e. the judges
did not inform my side) appeal in the higher court of Lower Saxony, in
the nearby town of Celle. Astonishingly, the judges made a provisional
ruling in his favor. The children should remain in Germany until the
appeal was heard.
When this took place, in October 1994, the Celle court reversed the
earlier English and German decisions on the grounds that it was the
children's wish to remain in Germany, and that they had been suffering
in a ``foreign environment . . . especially since German is not spoken
at home or at school'' . . . The judges ruled that the children had
attained an age at which it was appropriate to take their view into
account, . . . since ``a 7 year old child faced with the decision to
play judo or football, generally knows which decision to make . . .''
At the time of the hearing, I had not seen or spoken to my children
in over four months and they had been under the sole influence and
control of their father.
The Celle court decision also meant that all further legal
proceedings on custody and access took place--and are still taking
place, four years later--on the abductors home territory. The second
consequence was that despite numerous applications to the German court
since 1994, I have never been able to see my children alone.
In November 1995, several applications were rejected on the basis
that I might reabduct the boys and that they no longer wanted to see
me. In December 1995 a further hearing was held in Verden: access was
again denied on the grounds that I could re-abduct the children if we
were to spend Christmas together. In January 1996, following a
desperate attempt to see my boys in Germany, I was falsely accused by
my ex-husband of trying to abduct the children. Despite a police report
confirming this was untrue, immediately thereafter and in my absence
the court transferred the residence of the children to Germany. Despite
every guarantee on my part, including the support of the British Consul
General in Hamburg, the fear of abduction was consistently used, over
the next few years, to deny me and my parents normal access rights.
In September 1997, Volkmann divorced me. In exchange for giving him
custody, it was agreed in court that I should have access to the
children on ``neutral territory''.
But when the moment finally came, six long months later, for me to
meet my sons in Hamburg, Volkmann backed out at the last moment,
stating that it was the wishes of the children not to see me. The judge
refused to enforce the access agreement. It was only then that I
discovered that while the custody arrangement was enforceable, access
was not. (In the UK it is not possible to get a divorce or a custody
order without enforceable access arrangements).
This took place in February of this year. Since then a further
application to see my children has been denied on the grounds of ``lack
of urgency.'' Now, I am awaiting another hearing in Germany to which I
have been summoned on 25 November.
In the last four and a half years, not only have I never been alone
with my children, but I still have no enforceable access rights. In
this period, I have been able to spend only 11 hours in the company of
my children. (2 visits in December 1994; 1 in October 1995 and 5 more
by May 1996 and 1 in February 1998). All were held under the most
harrowing conditions: locked in my ex-husband's secluded house and
under the supervision of a third party. All were broken off after less
than two hours.
So the months pass, the years pass, and my children are growing up
without a mother. Before my ex-husband abducted our children, they were
allowed to see and love both their parents. Now, they are not.
If anything is trans-national, it is the interests of the children.
Sadly, children's issues remain an area where national interest is too
often allowed to assert itself. Co-operation between some Hague
Convention countries is practically non-existent. Judges often do not
know the treaty well enough to enforce it and nationalism takes
precedence over the Hague Convention rules.
Has anyone proved that I am an unfit mother? No. Has anyone proved
that I do not love my children? No. But, I am nonetheless denied the
rights that even women in prison are allowed. My parents have been
denied all access as well. My 86-year old father may never live to see
to see Alexander and Constantin again.
My children will be scarred for life and they may never recover
from this experience. They have become confused and angry with me,
because they have been told that I have abandoned them. On two
occasions, when I saw my sons and told them how happy I was to see
them, Alexander replied: ``you lie. Daddy told us that you could come
and see us whenever you wanted--but you never did''.
My children, as thousands of others, do not deserve to have their
lives destroyed in this way.
the problem
Most people associate child abduction with countries where laws and
customs are very different from ours. But, child abduction within
western societies is much more common than supposed and there has been
an explosion in the number of incidents since the mid-1970s.
There is an obvious link between this phenomenon and the decline in
marriage as a stabilizing factor in our societies. The sharp rise in
divorce rates and children born outside marriage provide fertile ground
for disputes about custody and access.
At the same time, the problem of child abduction has over the last
two decades acquired a new and sometimes insoluble dimension.
Statistics point to an increase in marriage between people of different
nationality. This is hardly surprising. With the explosion of
international travel and tourism, the social consequences of a global
economy, and the increasing irrelevance of national frontiers,
especially in Europe, traditional impediments to trans-national
marriages have fallen away. But those unions are no less prone to
divorce and to quarrels about children.
Whenever marriages break down, a decision has to be taken on where
and with whom the children will live. This can be a bitter and
contentious business. But when parents of different nationalities are
involved, disputes over custody and access can be further exacerbated
by differences in culture and in the legal systems of the two countries
involved. Some of these situations result in cross-frontier abductions
by one of the parents. When this happens--in contrast to abduction
within a single national jurisdiction--experience shows how difficult
it is to secure the safe return of children and to protect them from
the psychological damage inflicted by abduction.
Judicial co-operation between states can be a highly contentious
area as the recent negotiations on an International Criminal Court have
shown. One of the reasons is that judicial systems lie at the heart of
national sovereignty. This often inhibits cross-border co-operation,
which requires the competence of national courts to be limited by
international obligations. The issue of child abduction is a prime
example of the limitations of international co-operation in the
judicial area.
There are no international conventions regulating custody matters.
Every country has its own judicial system. Custody orders made in one
country are not necessarily recognized in another. When non-custodial
parents abduct their children from the state in which custody has been
given (usually heading to their home country), the chances of
recovering them through judicial process can be slim. Every year, more
and more children find themselves separated in the most harrowing
circumstances from one of their parents.
The effect on children can be devastating. But the victim parents
themselves are also plunged into a bewildering world where
helplessness, despair and disorientation compete. The emotional trauma
is compounded by the daunting practical obstacles to retrieving the
children, or even to gaming access to them. Simply finding out where to
get help can be very difficult. Parents often face unfamiliar legal,
cultural and linguistic barriers. Their emotional and financial
resources can be stretched to the limit. In the meantime, the abducted
child is often led to believe that the victim parent has abandoned it,
so leading the child, in its anger and hurt, to assert that it does not
want contact with the victim parent. This vicious circle complicates
still further a resolution, and will continue to do so until courts
recognize that there is such a thing as Parental Alienation Syndrome,
PAS. As the years pass, the chances of recovering children before their
adulthood become progressively more remote. Many victim parents feel
that it would be easier to come to terms with the shock of bereavement
than with a situation marked by prolonged uncertainty and anxiety.
Some parents may believe that their actions have an objective
justification (e.g. to rescue their children from domestic violence).
But a common thread in all too many cases is the sustained, vengeful
effort of the abductor to deprive the other parent of contact with the
child to the maximum degree possible. The aim is to flee one judicial
system, in favor of another in order to permanently reverse previous
custody decisions and destroy the other parent's relationship with the
child.
The International Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction of 1980 was designed to ensure ``the
protection of children from the harmful effects of their wrongful
removal or retention''. Should one parent break a custody agreement
either by illegally retaining (on an access visit) or abducting a
child, the Hague Convention requires its immediate return to the
country where the original custody agreement was made.
The purpose of the Hague Convention was to provide a simple and
straightforward procedure. In this, it has largely failed. Different
national approaches to implementing the Hague Convention, the slowness
of procedures, the lack of legal aid in some countries, and the
excessive recourse to the loop-hole clause, has meant that most cases
of international child abduction remain unresolved. Some children are
never located. Others are simply not returned to their country of
origin.
The exact figures for trans-national child abduction are not known.
Many parents are reluctant to go to the central authorities. Others are
not even aware of the existence of the Hague Convention. The official
figures could well understate the problem. Even so they are alarmingly
high. In the United States alone, the National Centre for Missing and
Exploited Children reports over 1,000 American cases (on average two
children per case) of cross-border abduction every year and the number
is growing sharply. In England, Reunite, the National Council for
Abducted Children, has recorded a 50% increase since 1995 in the number
of children abducted abroad by an estranged parent. In France, a
similar upsurge has been recorded.
Despite the rapid increase in abduction cases, there is too little
awareness of the phenomenon in the governments and legislatures of
Convention signatories. Nor is there much awareness among the
populations at large. As a result, very little is being done to tackle
the issue and to make The Hague Convention work as originally intended.
the hague convention: what it does and what it does not do
The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction is an international treaty currently in force between 49
countries.
The objectives of the Convention are ``to secure the prompt return
of the children wrongly removed to, or retained in, any Contracting
State; and to ensure that rights of custody and access under the law of
the Contracting state are effectively respected in the other
Contracting states'' (Article 1). The Convention is not concerned with
the ``best interests of the child'', that is to say, with the merits of
a custody case. Criticisms or complaints about the custodial parent or
the terms of a custody award, are matters to be dealt with by the
jurisdiction of the child9s habitual residence. The paramount objective
of the Hague Convention is to return the child to the country of
habitual residence and to confirm that country's jurisdiction.
The Hague Convention provides for a civil proceeding to be brought
by the country from which the child was removed or retained. if
proceedings are filed within one year, the judge of the country of
retention is mandated to order the return of the child to the country
of habitual residence. (Return is discretionary if more than one year
has elapsed and the child is settled in the new environment). The
abducting parent can raise objections to the return. But the intent of
the Convention is not to allow these objections except in the most
narrowly defined circumstances.
The exception to the requirement for the immediate return of the
child to the country of habitual residence is to be found in Article 13
of the Convention.
The judicial or administrative authority of the requested
state is not bound to order the return of the child if (Article
13b) there is a grave risk that the child's return would expose
him/her to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place
the child in an intolerable situation The judicial or
administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of
the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned
and has obtained an age and degree of maturity at which it is
appropriate to take account of its views.
A main intention of this article was to draw a clear distinction
between a child's objections, as defined in the article, and a child's
wishes as commonly expressed in a custody case. This is logical, given
that the Convention is not intended as an instrument to resolve custody
disputes per se. It follows, therefore, that the notion of
``objections'' under Article 13b is far stronger and more restrictive
than that of ``wishes'' in a custody case. A failure by courts to grasp
this distinction, and to see it as a key defense against the
manipulation of a child by the abductor-parent, is a root cause of the
difficulties described below in the implementation of the convention.
To sum up:
1. By allowing an exception, the Hague Convention does not set an
absolute rule. Children are not automatically returned.
2. Article 13, in constituting this exception, can offer abductors
a way of legitimizing their actions.
3. Whether or not article 13 serves this purpose depends on how the
judge interprets its meaning.
iv. the hague convention: what has gone wrong
The discretion given to judges has in practice resulted in a wide
variation between signatory states in the outcome of proceedings. The
American Bar Association reports that judicial returns vary between 5%
and 95% from country to country. Article 13b, originally intended as an
exception, has in some countries become virtually the rule. This is
jeopardizing the Convention's effectiveness and perverting its original
intent.
1. The exception is made the rule
Evidence is accumulating that a major cause for the discrepancy in
rates of return orders is the level of court allowed to hear Convention
cases. When cases are heard centrally by High Court judges, return
orders are usually made. But, the system tends to fail, when the courts
hearing Convention cases are local family courts without Convention
experience. This is particularly significant when Article 13b is raised
as an objection.
In England and Wales, Convention cases are exclusively heard
centrally by a small number (seventeen at present) of specialist High
Court judges. The High courts of England and Wales usually hear cases
expeditiously based on paper evidence and without the child's view
being heard. Judges usually make a decision quickly to return the
children, relying on the foreign court to make a fair decision at any
subsequent custody hearing.
The Consultation paper on Child Abduction published in the February
1997 issue of the British Family Law journal reported that in England
and Wales, the ``consistent approach has been to draw a clear
distinction between children's objections under article 13b and
children's wishes in ordinary domestic custody cases''. The English
High Court has taken a policy decision to approach Art. 13b with
caution (for example against the risk of indoctrination by an abducting
parent) and, even if a child were found to object to a return, to
refuse a return only in an exceptional case.
Conversely, in countries where Convention cases are first heard in
local courts without Convention expertise, the results can be very
different. For instance, in Germany, all Amtsgerichte (small family
courts that can be found in towns which have as few as 20,000
inhabitants) have jurisdiction to hear Convention cases. Cases are
heard in the locality where the abductor has taken the children
(usually his home town) and it is impossible to change jurisdictions.
\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1 This is currently under discussion in Germany and a proposal
has been put forward to reduce the number of courts eligible to hear
Convention cases (at present more than 300).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The risk here is of inexperienced judges, who may misinterpret the
meaning of the Hague Convention. The 1996 Lowe report found that in
Germany, no single Amtsgericht court had heard more than one case and
that every time that the child's objections were raised as a
``defense'' for abduction or retention, a return order was refused
A feature of many such cases is that they are allowed to become a
discussion on the merits of custody arrangements. Frequently, an
abducting parent will, within the framework of Article 13b, level
allegations against the other parent and request that oral evidence be
heard. Judges, who are inexperienced, treat these Article 13b
objections as ``a merit of custody'' argument This is exactly what the
Convention was supposed to avoid: such considerations are meant to be
reserved to the court of the child's habitual residence, which is best
placed to decide on questions of custody and access. But local family
courts are too often unable or unwilling to uphold the difference
between proceedings under the Hague Convention and arguments over
custody arrangements. Underlying this is a distrust of foreign courts.
There is the added risk of a vicious circle, if family court judges
are seen to favor local residents. Abductors will be readier to take
the law into their own hands, if they believe that their judges will
ex-post facto legitimize what they have done.
2. The danger of delay
The merit of the Convention is supposed to lie in the speed of its
proceedings. But, some countries are markedly slower in dealing with
Hague applications than others. This is particularly the case where, as
described above, court proceedings become in reality an argument over
custody. (The problem of delay is compounded when cases are first heard
in lower courts and appeals can then be lodged in higher courts).
In some countries, the involvement of the local Youth Authority or
Social Services, plays a major role in proceedings. Local judges tend
to rely on their evidence, and hold up matters by asking to see welfare
reports and the children. While in principle this could give a more
complete picture of the children's situation, it is nonetheless a major
factor for delay. In the meantime the child is more and more under the
influence of the abducting parent and further alienated from the absent
parent There is another problem. Youth Authority reports are usually
based on information available only in the country of retention and
there is little direct investigation into the environment from which
the child has been taken. The result, therefore, can be an in-built
bias in favor of the abductor. Finally, the passage of time will
eventually generate a new argument, which favors abductors, namely that
the children are now settled in their new environment and should not be
moved yet again.
3. Perversion of the Convention's intent
In a number of countries, therefore, interpretations of the Hague
Convention extend its meaning to encompass in practice an unwarranted
jurisdiction in custody matters. Certain consequences flow from this,
all of them prejudicial to the victim.
When a child is not returned, the abducting parent has the
additional advantage of having subsequent proceedings dealt with in the
country of retention rather than the country of the child's habitual
residence. Case studies show that these court decisions, dealing with
custody and access rights, tend to favor the abducting parent. This,
combined with the fact that in some countries (for example in Germany,)
judges are reluctant to enforce access orders, results in a situation
where a parent is often deprived of all contact with the child, or at
best, has contact in only the most harrowing circumstances (e.g. a
government office with a third party present). On this interpretation
of Article 13, the Hague Convention becomes in effect the instrument of
alienation between child and victim-parent--the very opposite of what
was intended.
Professor Elisa Perez-Vera provided the primary source of
interpretation of the Convention in her Report of 1980: ``The
Convention as a whole rests upon the unanimous rejection of the
phenomenon of illegal child removals and upon the conviction that the
best way to combat them at an international level is to refuse to grant
them legal recognition . . . the systematic invocation of the said
exceptions, substituting the forum chosen by the abductor for that of
the child's residence, would lead to a collapse of the whole structure
of the Convention by depriving it of the spirit of mutual confidence
which is its inspiration''.
4. Child trauma and parental alienation syndrome
Children who are abducted will have already suffered from their
parents' separation. But, in addition, they will experience the trauma
of being suddenly cut off from their familiar environment--from a
parent, grandparents, school and friends.
This experience is already bad enough: many children do not
understand what is happening or why. But things are often made even
worse, when the abducting parent is hiding from the police or taking
precautions against re-abduction; when the child realizes that there is
a state of war between its parents. The child has already been
traumatized by the loss of one parent; its greatest fear becomes that
it will lose the other parent. This fear itself then becomes an
obstacle to resolving the situation, since it is central to what is
known as Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS).
Studies of PAS have established the severity of psychological
damage done to abducted children, suddenly separated from a parent. The
studies have also shown how susceptible the child is to being
systematically alienated by the abductor-parent from the victim-parent.
This susceptibility bears comparison to the ``Stockholm Syndrome'',
when hostages start to identity with their captors. In the case of an
abducted child the identification will be the stronger, because of the
age of the ``hostage'' and the child's relationship with the
``captor.'' For fear of losing the abducting parent as well, the child
will not only be eager to please, but ready to believe allegations that
it has been abandoned by the victim parent
This is fertile ground for systematic indoctrination by the
abducting parent and/or a professional psychologist. Since under some
judicial systems, children--sometimes as young as three--may be
required to appear in court, it becomes of paramount importance to
abductor-parents that their children say ``the right thing'' to judges.
This puts an even higher premium on placing psychological pressure on
abducted children.
The irony--and tragedy--is that the Hague Convention, in judicial
systems like these, delivers children into precisely the danger from
which it is supposed to protect them. Again Article 13 b is the crux.
It can only be invoked if returning the child would expose it to grave
risk of ``physical or psychological harm'' or place it in an
``intolerable situation''. What greater psychological harm, what more
intolerable situation could there be for a child, than to be exposed to
systematic indoctrination by one parent against the other; and, worse,
to carry the main burden of responsibility in adult court proceedings
for deciding between mother and father? When placed in this context
``the will of the children'' becomes nothing less than a vehicle for
legitimizing the actions of the abductor-parent.
5. Enforcement
Another problem lies in the alarming number of return orders, which
have not been enforced. In several Convention countries, abduction is
not considered a criminal act. Returns orders are not enforceable. In
other countries, the enforcement process can take several months and
does not always end in a return order being made. (The case of Tom
Sylvester -US/Austria--is but one such example).
6. Legal Aid
The lack of legal aid provisions in some countries is another major
problem. Victim parents are often unable to bare the costs associated
with these expensive procedures. In England & Wales, for instance, the
legal aid provisions are extremely generous. But there should be no
reason why each Contracting State should not underwrite the application
under the Convention itself It would also be helpful to judges if they
knew that legal aid will be available in the Contract State to a parent
whose child the judge is returning under the Convention.
conclusion
Eighteen years of experience with The Hague Convention leads
inevitably to the conclusion that it is a seriously flawed instrument,
which at worst prejudices the welfare of abducted and illegally
retained children. The heart of the problem lies in the failure of
national legal systems to implement the Convention in a uniform
fashion, consistent with its spirit. As a result the Convention appears
to be no deterrent to child abduction.
It is arguable that, in so far as Article 13 can be exploited to
justify abduction or retention, it has made the situation worse. It is
also striking that, according to research by Dr. Linda Girdner, a
parent is more likely to secure a return order through a non-Convention
proceeding than through a Hague Convention proceeding (Dr. Girdner
quotes an 80% success rate with the former compared with 33% under the
latter).
This is not an argument for dismantling the Hague Convention. It is
an argument for improving it. The international community needs an
international treaty based on the rejection of illegal abductions or
retentions across frontiers and the need to return children to their
usual place of residence. The fact that, as in England & Wales, the
Convention can be made to work as intended shows its potential. The
task is to come up with remedies to deal with those situations where
the Convention does not work.
This task will not be easily or quickly accomplished. That would
require the establishment of some kind of supra-national legal body, to
which signatory states would defer. That is not going to happen any
time soon. The raw material with which we have to work is 52
signatories, with different judicial systems. By definition, as long as
this situation remains, the proper implementation of the Hague
Convention will depend in large part on a willingness to co-operate in
good faith.
But there are a number of steps, which we can begin to take
straightaway and which should set in motion an incremental process of
improvement.
A Hague Convention Review Conference needs to be called as soon as
possible to debate and introduce improvements in the following areas:
1. The Convention should make trans-national abduction and
retention of children a criminal offense, notifiable to
Interpol, Europol and national police agencies.
2. At the same time, so as to co-ordinate action and
information, there should be ``hot lines'' between Central
Authorities and police; between national organizations, such as
NCMEC and Reunite, on the one hand and Central Authorities and
police agencies on the other; and between members of the public
and national organization.
3. Governments should fund information campaigns to make the
public aware of these arrangements.
4. The staff and resources of the Permanent Bureau in The
Hague and of Central Authorities should be increased to meet
the need for more effective action to tackle international
child abduction. In particular the Central Authorities should
notify the Permanent Bureau of all abductions or illegal
retentions brought to their attention, as well as of the
outcome of Hague Convention proceedings on their territories.
The Bureau should keep a comprehensive database of these cases.
5. While an exception clause cannot be dispensed with
altogether, Article 13 should be re-drafted in a way, which
narrows its use to genuinely exceptional circumstances. As
currently drafted, it can too easily become the rule and not
the exception.
6. In parallel, strict limitations should be placed on the
age and circumstances in which children can be called to appear
before the court. As a general rule, since Convention hearings
are not about custody, children should not appear in courts at
all. To require young children to appear in court and to make a
choice between parents is a form of child abuse, inflicting
extreme cruelty. The confusion and stress involved are for most
children beyond description, and empty the notion of the ``will
of the children'' of any significance. There may be rare cases
when it is important to hear the child at first hand. But no
child below a certain age should have to endure this ordeal.
7. Article 13 should incorporate a clause dealing with access
provisions. Namely, if a court refuses a return, it should
automatically make the necessary provisions for enforceable
access rights, with a fair division of travel costs.
8. Article 21 should be entirely revised. Experience has
shown that it does not work.
9. Provisions for legal aid should be addressed and a common
policy should be established by ail signatory countries.
Many of these points were discussed at the recent NCMEC conference
on 15 and 16 September 1998. The recommendations which will be put
together shortly, cover much of the above ground.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much.
I hope you are encouraged, at least somewhat, by the
testimony of the Attorney General. There seems to me to be a
maximum interest in the problem, one that has bothered me for a
long time and, of course, has bothered you. I have not had
anything happen to me of that sort. To the limit of my
capability, I am going to try to encourage the administration
to come up with a solution that will be helpful to you.
Now we will go back to the regular order, as we say in the
Senate. Mr. Sylvester, we welcome you and we will be delighted
to hear your testimony.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS R. SYLVESTER, CINCINNATI, OHIO
Mr. Sylvester. Thank you, Senator Helms, all members of
the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and Senator DeWine,
for your interest in the international parental child
abductions and providing me this opportunity to make a
statement and submit materials regarding the abduction of my
daughter, Carina Sylvester, to be entered into the public
record.
Carina, my precious 4-year-old daughter, is my only child.
My Austrian ex-wife, Monika Sylvester, unlawfully abducted our
American-born daughter from the United States to Austria on
October 30th, 1995 when she was just 13 months old. Every day
since then has been driven by my continuing efforts to seek
enforcement of the various U.S. and Austrian court decisions
granting me custody of my daughter and her return to the United
States. Unfortunately, even after nearly 3 full years, my
efforts have failed. Despite my unceasing attempts to be a part
of Carina's life, I have not been able to participate at all in
her life. The facts are that I have seen my daughter in a
supervised setting for less than 10 hours over the past 3
years.
It is my understanding that the focus of this hearing is
the response of the U.S. to international parental child
abductions from the United States into other nations. It is
also my understanding that you are seeking information from
left-behind American parents like me specifically on the
effectiveness of the responses of the State Department and the
Justice Department to our pleas for assistance in obtaining the
return of our children. I appreciate your inquiry because,
unfortunately, in my experience the response has been of no
assistance in obtaining enforcement of the valid orders I have
for the custody of my daughter and for her return from Austria.
The reason why it is so important for the U.S. to respond
effectively to the needs of left-behind parents involved with
countries who are party to the Hague Convention is because the
Hague Convention does not always do what it is designed to do:
Promptly reintegrate parentally abducted children into their
environments of habitual residence for a custody determination.
Sometimes, as in my case, even when there is an order entered
for the child's immediate return and affirmed all the way
through the Supreme Court, the child is still not returned.
I can, of course, speak to you only of my own experience. I
can say, however, that from the moment I came home to discover
my baby daughter gone on October 30th, 1995, my life has been
consumed with the process of fighting to maintain a life with
my daughter. Unfortunately, the bottom line to my story is that
had I known in the beginning what I know now, I would have
taken immediate steps to personally retrieve Carina back to the
United States and avoid the emotionally and financially testing
legal process entirely. That would have provided the swift
return of the child to her environment of habitual residence
for a custody determination here. Instead, my initial moves,
however, were to the police and a lawyer.
Through the lawyer, I learned of the Hague Convention and
its civil remedy for the return of a parentally abducted child.
Having a highly developed sense of right and wrong and being a
law respecting and law abiding person myself, I put my faith in
the workings of the legal system, that applying the terms of
the Hague Convention would bring my daughter home.
What I had not counted on was that Carina's mother would
not comply voluntarily with the order for return and that the
Austrian legal system would provide no mechanisms for enforcing
its own orders to coerce her to do so.
I received a prompt order from the Austrian trial court
that Carina be returned to her home in Michigan in 1995 which
became valid and final when affirmed by the Austrian Supreme
Court upon its delivery to the trial court on May 7th, 1996.
However, because of the completely ineffectual system for
enforcement of orders in Austria, Carina was never voluntarily
returned.
The one and only opportunity for civil enforcement was
given only after the order was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
An early morning surprise coercive enforcement was permitted
because of the mother's well publicized refusal to allow the
child to be returned to the States.
When this enforcement was attempted in May 1996, with the
assistance of a court officer, local police, a social worker,
and the trial judge herself, in the end it was merely the
classic knock on the door and a request for compliance. The
answer to the knock on the door was that, of course, the baby
was not home, but in reality she had gone out a back window in
the arms of her grandmother.
Once that enforcement failed, there was no voluntary
compliance and no available means to try again. Instead,
Carina's mother took an offensive position launching every
legal maneuver imaginable. Finally, one of those maneuvers
stuck and it was fatal to my case. That was her motion to
reopen the Hague Convention case due to the passage of time and
the assimilation of my daughter into the Austrian environment
during that period of time. Unbelievably, the same Austrian
Supreme Court that had affirmed the order for return in 1996
affirmed first the decision of the trial court to reopen the
Hague case, then its decision not to enforce the order for
return as in the child's best interest. With that decision, all
doors to my daughter slammed shut.
Thus, due to the passage of time and the ineffectiveness of
the Austrian courts to enforce its own orders, the Austrian
judiciary has now taken the position that Austria will not
enforce its own valid and final order for my daughter's return.
The situation is best described with circular logic: The
child has not been returned because the order was not enforced;
now the order will not be enforced because the child was not
returned.
On April 16th, 1996, I obtained a judgment of divorce in
Michigan and was awarded custody of my daughter until further
order of the court. The Austrian Administrative Supreme Court
refused to acknowledge that judgment. My appeal is still
pending before the Supreme Administrative Court for a final
determination.
In the meantime, the Austrian trial court has awarded
custody to my wife and has further ordered me to pay support.
However, I have had only the scantiest opportunity to see my
daughter since she was taken from me. Over the past 3 years, I
have had to petition, argue appeals, and request special writs,
all for the opportunity to see my daughter in a public
building, supervised by no fewer than six people for a total of
less than 10 hours.
Imagine yourself in my shoes, for example, awaiting one
such visit ordered at Christmas 1995 which was to have given me
my first glimpse of Carina since she had been abducted. I
arrived at the Institute for Learning in Graz with a bag of
gifts on Christmas eve only to have the mother ignore the
order. I left the Institute still with the gifts in hand
returning to my hotel room to spend the rest of Christmas there
alone. It is a pitiful situation for a parent, but consider why
it is necessary to deny Carina the opportunity to share these
wonderful times with her father. There is no sanction for her
failure to provide the child on that day or any other.
The visitation has deteriorated to such a point that I was
forced to file a petition for rights of access under Article
21, which has resulted in so many appeals that by the time each
set of appeal is complete, the requested visitation time has
passed and the issue is moot.
As a result of the very frustrating legal situation in
Austria, I sought all possible assistance here in the States.
Very little that happened here in the States had any effect
whatsoever on my situation. Naturally I worked with and spoke
regularly to the Office of Children's Issues people who were
working on my case, and I must say that on a whole I have been
extremely frustrated with the results. Perhaps my expectations
were unrealistic, but as the U.S. Central Authority, I would
have hoped for swift and aggressive action in Carina's behalf
under its obligations in Article 7 of the Hague Convention.
Instead, I was told I would have to wait, that the issue would
be addressed to the Austrians, for example, in 6 months at the
conference meeting, or I would hear, my hands are tied, or you
are just upset because you are not getting what you want.
My attorney was simultaneously making calls and writing
letters to State and receiving a similar response. The time
delays in the preparation of letters, notes, and de marches is
astounding and I feel they lose all effectiveness as a result
of their delay. Although some strongly worded letters went out
on my behalf, my overall impression is that the case workers
are diplomats whose overall objectives were not those
articulated under the Hague Convention, but international
relations at the expense of children.
My experiences with the Justice Department began well with
the entry of an international warrant in May 1996 under the
International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act. This led to the
red and yellow notices by Interpol. However, my case went
nowhere. Even inquiries into the matter were surprisingly met
with contention. Initially I was told that the criminal
approach would be put on hold to see how the civil proceedings
under the Hague would unfold. I was also told that Austria does
not extradite its citizens, but the U.S. does. So, if I were to
go over to Austria to retrieve Carina myself, then I would run
the risk of being extradited back to Austria to face criminal
charges there. Clearly an unlevel playing field.
Now, nearly 3 years later, we have seen how the civil
proceedings have unfolded. Still nothing. In fact, after a very
short period of time, it became clear that the official
position of the Department of Justice was to remain neutral on
the warrant. Not understanding this position or being satisfied
with it, I continued to press for information and answers or
even some interest in the warrant of any kind. For example, my
recent request to the Assistant Attorney General on the case
that an extradition request be issued, even if impossible to
achieve, was denied.
Therefore, I believe the United States is not responding
adequately through law enforcement tools to assist American
parents in internationally abducted U.S. children. Such legal
action by the U.S. Department of Justice would serve to apply
pressure on the Austrians to comply with its international
treaty obligations and perhaps the abductor take accountability
for the wrongful, illegal behavior. With the current situation
of lack of support from the U.S. Department of Justice, the
abductor continues to get away with complete impunity.
Now, here I am a left-behind father with an international
warrant under the International Parental Kidnapping Act and all
I was asking what could be done to follow up on the warrant.
For example, what is the next step? Can we request extradition?
I still, after more than 2 years, do not have an answer to
these questions. As U.S. citizens, are Carina and I not
entitled to U.S. law enforcement? My experience with Justice
was borderline hostility rather than helpfulness. My questions
concerning extradition requests were constantly answered that
Austria does not extradite its own citizens. Now I have learned
that a request could have gone out, nonetheless, to send a
message, but I was able to get nowhere in my request that this
be done.
Over the past 3 years, I have requested the involvement of
senior officials in the Department of State, the Department of
Justice, Congressmen, Senators, diplomats, the FBI, and people
at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. My
attorney talked to Janet Reno in person early on about my case.
In June 1997, I met personally with Swanny Hunt, the U.S.
Ambassador to Austria, in her office in Vienna.
I have paid attorney fees both here and in Austria in
excess of $200,000. I have attended workshops and rallies. I
have networked with other parents who are similarly situated. I
believe I am doing all I can and feel that some days I devote
most of my day to my efforts to get some assistance to enable
me to have a life with my daughter. I have sought this
assistance from only those persons I believe to be holding
themselves out as those who can help: The Department of State
and the Department of Justice. I have long felt abandoned by
both.
Carina Sylvester is an American born U.S. citizen with
rights which are being violated. Who in the United States is
working to protect Carina's rights? Furthermore, Carina has
rights which continue to be violated. According to the
Austrian's own agreement to the U.N. Convention on the Rights
of the Child, Carina has a right to know both parents, both
extended families, and both nationalities. If you have rights
that are not able to be exercised, it is as if you have no
rights at all. She is not being exposed to this country, her
native language, or her extended family. She has the right to a
continuing relationship with me, her father. Carina was taken
from her home in the U.S. nearly 3 years ago. Since then, every
day I feel like I have been fighting with both the Austrian and
U.S. Governments in order to be a substantial part of Carina's
life.
I love Carina with all my heart and soul. I am committed to
a loving relationship with my daughter. With positive
persistence and enduring patience, I have learned that I have
misplaced my trust in the judicial system. I do not want to
lose Carina. She is the most important part of my life. Please
help to bring Carina back to the United States and allow her
the opportunity to enjoy the normal relationship that a child
is entitled to have with her father.
There are no words which can adequately describe my
feelings of loss and pain. I wish that I could convey the daily
anguish and the deeper feelings of sorrow, sadness, anger,
despair, and hurt. These feelings are always present for me.
The moment I became aware that my daughter was taken from me, I
felt like someone had reached inside my chest and ripped my
heart out of my body. Since then, I think about her always.
Every child I see reminds me of her. There is not a day that
goes by that she is not paramount on my mind. Through Carina, I
felt the joy and wonder of being a father. Then, after only 13
months, I felt the sorrow of her being taken away from me. If
you are a parent yourself, perhaps you can imagine the
heartbreak of being without your child.
There is an immediate need for both the Department of State
and the Department of Justice to prioritize these parental
child abduction matters and assist with the enforcement of
American orders and American arrest warrants to give some
support to parents like me who obtain affirmed valid and final
orders for return under the Hague Convention which they
themselves do not bring the children home. A strongly staffed
U.S. Central Authority must take an aggressive, nondiplomatic
posture with uncooperative Central Authorities like the
Austrian Ministry of Justice. The Department of Justice must
vigorously pursue these fugitives from justice as they would
serious crimes and never again remain neutral on a warrant for
arrest of an abductor. Extradition should be requested in every
appropriate case whether it is believed to be granted or not.
I hope and pray that productive action results for our
children from these hearings today. I have submitted extensive
written materials to support my short presentation here this
morning and hope that you will read and consider them. I thank
you for listening to my story and my concerns.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sylvester follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas R. Sylvester
introduction
I am Tom Sylvester, father of Carina Sylvester, my precious four-
year old daughter who is my only child. My Austrian ex-wife, Monika
Sylvester, unlawfully abducted our American-born daughter, Carina, from
the United States to Austria on October 30, 1995, when she was only 13
months old. Every day since then has been driven by my continuing
efforts to seek enforcement of the various U.S. and Austrian Court
orders granting me custody of my daughter, the arrest of her mother and
her return to the United States. Unfortunately, even after three full
years, my efforts have failed. Despite many unceasing attempts to be
part of Carina's life, I have not been successful. The facts are that I
have seen my daughter in a supervised setting for less than 10 hours
over the past three years.
There are no words which can adequately describe my feelings of
loss and pain. I wish that I could convey the daily anguish and the
deeper feelings of sorrow, sadness, anger, despair and hurt. These
feelings are always present for me. The moment I became aware that my
daughter was taken from me I felt like someone had reached inside my
chest and ripped my heart out of my body. Since then, I think about her
always. Every child I see reminds me of her. There is not a day that
goes by that she is not paramount on my mind. Through Carina, I felt
the joy and wonder of being a father. Then, after only 13 months, I
felt the sorrow of her being taken away from me. If you are a parent
yourself, perhaps you can imagine the heartbreak of being without your
child.
procedural background
On October 31, 1995 I filed an Application for Assistance with the
State Department under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction to which both the U.S. and Austria are
party. I also filed a Complaint for Divorce in Oakland County Michigan
Circuit Court. The Application for Assistance made its way through the
Austrian Ministry of Justice to the court of the first instance in
Graz, Austria where hearings were conducted by Judge Christine Katter.
Both the mother and I appeared at the hearings, and the mother raised
her defenses to return the child under the terms of the Hague
Convention Treaty. On December 20, 1995, Judge Katter entered an Order
for the immediate return of Carina to me in Michigan. The mother,
however, did not comply with the court order.
Thereafter, Judge Katter ordered specific supervised visitation for
me at the Institute of Family Learning in Graz on Christmas Eve and
December 27, 1995. The mother did not bring the child to the appointed
place for visitation on either date denying Carina the opportunity to
share the fun of opening Christmas presents with her Father.
Instead, the mother took an appeal to Judge Katter's Order to the
Austrian Court of Appeals. This initiated an automatic stay of
enforcement of the December 20, 1995 Court Order which ultimately
continued through May 7, 1996. The Austrian Court of Appeals affirmed
the decision of Judge Katter and again directed Mrs. Sylvester to
return the child to me for a custody determination here in the United
States.
The mother still would not return the child and instead took an
Extraordinary Writ to the Austrian Supreme Court. The Austrian Supreme
Court, although rendering its decision on February 27, 1996 in favor of
the return of the child, did not ``deliver'' its Order until May 7,
1996. Once delivered, all stays were then lifted in this case and the
Order of December 20, 1995 became finally enforceable. On May 10, 1996,
two local attorneys assembled a group in Graz, Austria to assist in
effectuating civil enforcement of Judge Katter's Order. That group
included local police, Judge Katter herself, an enforcer from the court
and others, including my Michigan counsel and me. Unfortunately, the
well-intentioned enforcement failed when the mother stated that Carina
was not at home and that she was with her grandmother somewhere ``in
the mountains.'' I believe that Carina's grandmother escaped from the
house with Carina out a back window.
There was much drama in the attempted enforcement in that a gun was
drawn by the child's Austrian grandfather on the court officials.
However, the local police on the scene made no arrests. To date,
despite efforts by my Austrian counsel, there has been no criminal
matter against the mother lodged by Austrian officials.
The mother, still not in compliance with the court's order for
return, responded to the attempted enforcement by first admitting
herself into a hospital for ``injuries'' allegedly sustained during the
benign attempted enforcement. She then retaliated with a barrage of
actions against the trial court including a motion for disqualification
of the judge alleging an amorous connection between the judge and my
Austrian counsel, and a motion to change venue based on a false change
in her address, both of which were denied. The mother then lodged
criminal charges and grievances against my attorney. The most damaging
of all, however, was her petition to ``reopen'' the Hague Convention
case due to change of circumstances resulting from the passage of time.
This motion was denied by the trial court, but was reversed and
remanded on appeal. The Supreme Court of Austria determined that the
order to return, entered more than a year earlier, may not itself be
changed since it is both valid and final. However, with the services of
an expert in child psychology, the trial court was to determine is
circumstances had changed sufficiently due to the passage of time to
warrant that the child not now be separated from her mother under the
``grave risk of harm'' analysis. The trial court was further to
consider if the child were to be returned, the proper mode of
enforcement for the order.
On remand, the trial court held that the order for return would not
be enforced. This decision was made with no input from me and was based
on a best interests of the child analysis ``since the specific welfare
of the child takes precedence over the purposes of the Hague
Convention.'' This decision was made despite the assurances of a ``Safe
Harbor'' order from the Michigan court, the scheme of which the trial
court dismissed as not in the child's best interest since it would
remove her from Austria and could allow for my retaining custody in
Michigan. both situations, the court concluded, would be detrimental to
the child. With this analysis, the court effectively determined custody
in clear violation of Article 16. This decision was subsequently
affirmed on appeal.
I filed two applications with the European Commission on Human
Rights against Austria on behalf of both Carina and me but have no
official word as yet as to their acceptance for presentment to the
court.
In Michigan, the divorce case proceeded to a Default Judgment of
Divorce granting me sole physical and legal custody of Carina. The
mother was granted supervised visitation in Michigan. The Judgment was
entered on April 16, 1996. One week later, Judge Breck entered an Order
sealing court records. The Austrian Ministry of Justice refuses to
acknowledge the Michigan Judgment of Divorce, such refusal based in
part of an Affidavit submitted by the mother's Michigan counsel. this
decision was affirmed on appeal and is currently pending before the
Supreme Administrative Court.
The FBI, through Special Agent Scott Wilson, took an Affidavit to
the U.S. District Court and Magistrate Morgan has signed A Warrant in
Criminal Complaint No.96-80432, that being the case of The United
States of America v. Monika M. Sylvester brought under the
International Parental Kidnapping act, 18 USC 1204. the case was
assigned to Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Gorland. In the meantime,
the FBI and the West Bloomfield, Michigan Police have submitted reports
to Interpol. It is my understanding however that Interpol itself
officially takes no affirmative steps to locate anyone or enforce
anything.
the process of seeking assistance
In an attempt to move the Austrian authorities to assist in either
the civil or criminal enforcement of Judge Katter's Order, I sought the
assistance of the American Consulate in Vienna. The U.S. Ambassador
personally delivered a U.S. government de marche to the Austrian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs in June, 1997. I asked the State
Department, Bureau of Consular Affairs to correspond with the Ministry
of Justice, the Central Authority in Austria. In response, the Minister
of Justice has declined to assist in the enforcement of the Hague
Convention.
I have requested the involvement of literally hundreds of people
including President Clinton, Mrs. Hillary Clinton, Attorney General
Janet Reno, Senators Abraham and Levin, Representatives Knollenberg and
Postman, Nancy Nayak and others within the International Division,
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, David Hobbs, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State for Overseas Citizens Services, U.S.
Department of State, Randy Toledo, Terri Schubert, Debra Caruth and
Ernistine Gilpin of the Office of International Affairs, U.S.
Department of Justice, Jennifer Gorland and Saul Green, the U.S.
Attorneys for the Eastern District of Michigan, U.S. Department of
Justice, Scott Wilson, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
in the U.S. Department of Justice, Ellen Conway, Jim Schuler, Ray
Clore, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Office of Children's Issues, U.S.
Department of State, Jim Preach, Interpol, John Baliff and Guyle Cavin,
General Counsel, U.S. Embassy in Vienna, and I met with Swanee Hunt,
U.S. Ambassador to Austria in Vienna.
Nothing done has made a difference. The child was not returned
because the order was not enforced, now the order will not be enforced
because the child was not returned. The delay engendered both by the
stubborn refusal of the mother not to comply with the order for return
and the unending number of ancillary motions and other legal maneuvers
brought by the mother coupled with the unlimited number of appeals to
each decision, was fatal to my relationship with my daughter.
the u.s. central authority: the state department
As a result of the very frustrating legal situation in Austria, I
sought all possible assistance here in the States. Very little that
happened here in the U.S. had any effect whatsoever on my situation.
Naturally, I worked and spoke regularly to the Office of Children's
Issues people who were working on my case. And I must say that on a
whole, I have been extremely frustrated with the results. Perhaps my
expectations were unrealistic, but as the U.S. Central Authority, I
would have hoped for swift and aggressive action in Carina's behalf
under its obligations in Article 7 of the Hague Convention. Instead, I
was told I'd have to wait--that the issue would be addressed to the
Austrians for example in six months at the Conference Meeting. Or I'd
hear ``my hands are tied'', or ``you're only upset because you are not
getting what you want''. My attorney was simultaneously making calls
and writing letters to State and receiving a similar response. The time
delays in the preparation of letters, notes and de marches is
astounding and I feel they lose all effectiveness as a result of their
delay. Although some strong-worded letters went out on my behalf--my
overall impression is that the case workers are diplomats whose overall
objectives were not those articulated under the Hague Convention, but
international relations, at the expense of the children.
the justice department
My experiences with the Justice Department began well with the
entry of an international warrant in May of 1996 under the
International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act. This led to the red and
yellow notices by Interpol. However, the case went nowhere. Even
inquiries into the matter were surprisingly met with contention.
Initially, I was told that the criminal approach would be put on hold
to see how the civil proceedings under the Hague Convention would
unfold. I was told that Austria does not extradite its citizens but the
U.S. does. So if I were to go over to Austria to retrieve Carina
myself, that I would run the risk of being extradited to Austria to
face criminal charges there. Now nearly three years later, we've seen
how the civil proceedings have unfolded and still nothing. In fact,
after a very short period of time it became clear that the official
position of the Department of Justice was to ``remain neutral'' on the
warrant. Not understanding this position or being satisfied with it, I
continued to press for information and answers or even some interest in
the warrant of any kind. For example, my recent request to the
Assistant Attorney General on the case that an extradition request be
issued--even if impossible to achieve--was denied. Therefore, I believe
the United States is not responding adequately through law enforcement
tools to assist American parents and internationally abducted U.S.
children. Such legal action by the U.S. Department of Justice would
serve to apply pressure on the Austrians to comply with its
international treaty obligations, and perhaps the abductor to take
accountability for the wrongful, illegal behavior. With the current
situation of lack of support from the U. S. Department of Justice, the
abductor continues to get away with complete impunity.
Now, here I am a left-behind father with an international warrant
under the IPKA and all I asked was what can be done to follow up on the
warrant--for example, what's the next step? My experience with Justice
was borderline hostility rather than helpless. My questions concerning
extradition requests were constantly answered that Austria doesn't
extradite its own citizens. Now I have learned that a request could
have gone out nonetheless to send a message but I was able to get
nowhere in my requests that this be done.
one cause of the problem
Had Austria been able to provide some mechanisms for enforcement of
the return order for Carina, the Department of State and the Department
of Justice would need to pay no significant role. Therefore, Austria
plays a significant role in the bizarre result of my case that looked
so hopeful from the start. As a treaty partner to the Hague Convention,
Austria has indicated its interests in and dedication to complying with
the terms of the Convention and its implementation there. Nonetheless,
its legal system works in direct opposition to the goals of the
Convention--that being the prompt return of the parentally abducted
child into its environment of habitual residence.
First, the Austrian legal system fails to provide for any
significant and hard-hitting enforcement procedures, relying instead on
the polite knock on the door and a request for voluntary compliance.
Second, the Austrian legal system provides no end to any issue before
it, allowing for unlimited appeals and motions until an original
decision is bent so far out of shape that is no longer the same
decision. This creates the serious problem of extensive delay, i.e.,
when the court file is in a higher court, no proceedings can be had on
any interim matter requiring resolution not related to the issue on
appeal.
Third, the Austrian Central Authority is intractable. There is no
real evidence of any interest or dedication to compliance with its
duties under Article 7. In my case, when correspondence was sent from
our Central Authority to the Austrian Central Authority requesting
information as to what affirmative steps had been taken under Article
7, the response was that the Minister of Justice declined to answer on
the basis that the question did not promote good Austrian-American
relations.
Unfortunately for parents who put their faith in the legal system,
the Hague Convention sometimes does not work even between parties to
the Convention and even when orders for immediate return of the child
are entered. It is because of this failure that American parents
desperately need the assistance of the Department of State and the U.S.
Central Authority, and the Department of Justice as our center of
federal law enforcement.
the harsh reality
The harsh reality of my situation is that I have paid attorney fees
both here and in Austria in excess of $200,000. I have attended
workshops and rallies. I have networked with other parents who are
similarly situated. I believe I am doing all that I can and feel that
some days I devote most of my day to my efforts to get some assistance
to enable me to have a life with my daughter. I have sought this
assistance from only those persons I believe to be holding themselves
out as those who can help--Department of State and Department of
Justice. I have long felt abandoned by both.
Carina Sylvester is an American-born U.S. Citizen with rights which
are being violated. Who in the U.S. is working to protect Carina's
rights? Furthermore, Carina has rights which continue to be violated.
According to the Austrian's own agreement to the U.N. Convention on the
Rights of the Child, Carina has a right to know both parents, both
extended families, and both nationalities. Carina is being denied her
rights. If you have rights that are not able to be exercised, it is as
if you have no rights at all. She is not being exposed to this country,
her native language or her extended family. She has the right to have a
continuing relationship with me, her father. Carina was taken from her
home in the U.S. nearly three years ago. Since then, every day I feel
like I have been fighting with Austrian and U.S. governments, in order
to be a substantial part of Carina's life.
I love Carina with all of my heart and soul. I am committed to a
loving relationship with my daughter. With positive persistence and
enduring patience I have learned that I have misplaced my trust in the
judicial system. I do not want to lose Carina; she is the most
important part of my life.
Please help to bring Carina back to the United States and allow her
the opportunity to enjoy the normal relationship that a child is
entitled to have with her father.
There are no words which can adequately describe my feelings of
loss and pain. I wish that I could convey the daily anguish and the
deeper feelings of sorrow, sadness, anger, despair and hurt. These
feelings are always present for me. The moment I became aware that my
daughter was taken from me I felt like someone had reached inside my
chest and ripped my heart out of my body. Since then, I think about her
always. Every child I see reminds me of her. There is not a day that
goes by that she is not paramount on my mind. Through Carina, I felt
the joy and wonder of being a father. Then, after only 13 months, I
felt the sorrow of her being taken away from me. If you are a parent
yourself; perhaps you can imagine the heartbreak of being without your
child.
what can be done
There is an immediate need for both the Department of State and the
Department of Justice to prioritize these parental child abduction
matters and assist with the enforcement of American orders and American
arrest warrants to give some support to parents like me who obtain
affirmed valid and final orders for return under the Hague Convention
which don't themselves bring the children home. A strongly staffed U.S.
Central authority must take an aggressive, non-diplomatic posture with
uncooperative Central Authorities like the Austrian Ministry of
Justice. The Department of Justice must vigorously pursue these
fugitives from justice as they would ``serious'' crimes and never again
remain neutral on a warrant for arrest of an abductor. Extradition
should be requested in every appropriate case whether it is believed it
will be granted or not.
I hope and pray that productive action results for our children
from these hearings here today. I have submitted extensive written
materials to support my short presentation to you this morning and hope
that you will read and consider them. I thank you for listening to my
story and my concerns.
[Additional information submitted by Mr. Sylvester appears
in the appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Sylvester. We are going to
try.
Mr. Johnson.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. JOHNSON, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, before
proceeding, I would like to express my deep appreciation to you
and to other members of the committee for their interest in
this subject, for your willingness to schedule hearings on the
subject, and for your untiring commitment to assisting American
children and their parents in this awful situation. In
addition, the dedication and hard work of the committee staff
in preparing for this hearing merits the admiration and thanks
of all left-behind American parents. Among the only rays of
hope in this situation for most of us have been the work of
your committee and other congressional initiatives on the House
side under Chairman Gilman and the House Caucus on Missing
Children. So, for all of us, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I need to say that this statement is
submitted solely in my personal capacity as an American citizen
and as the father of Amanda Kristina Johnson, an American child
wrongfully retained in Sweden. Although I have been an attorney
for the U.S. Department of State for 19 years, I make this
statement as a private citizen and do not in any way purport to
represent or speak for the Department of State. I have taken
annual leave to be here today and have not used Government
resources to prepare or reproduce this statement.
Mr. Chairman, in the June 29th Washington Post article on
Lady Meyer that most of us have seen, there was consensus among
most of those quoted, including U.S. Government personnel, that
the system does not work. Having spent more than $200,000 in
Amanda's case, litigating against the deep pocket of the
Swedish Government in nine courts in two countries, I fully
agree that the system does not work. This committee is to be
commended for trying to find out why the system does not work
and for being willing to do something about it.
Mr. Chairman, as you indicated earlier, there is less than
a 30 percent return rate for American children under the Hague
Convention and quite frankly that percentage is probably skewed
by the very high return rate from certain countries such as the
United Kingdom. So, if a country like the United Kingdom were
eliminated, the average would be much lower.
The situation is only getting worse for left-behind parents
at the moment because of the difficulties of getting the
Justice Department to implement the 1993 act when Hague
remedies are inapplicable or have been exhausted, the worst
offending countries emboldened by the feeling that there is no
risk in their current conduct, and the absence of adequate
preventative measures.
Mr. Chairman, the truth is that American citizens cannot
rely on foreign government compliance with the international
legal obligations they have undertaken in ratifying the Hague
Convention and applicable human rights treaties.
I will briefly try to summarize my rather lengthy
statement, covering the subjects of foreign government
involvement in and support for parental child abduction and
wrongful retention, foreign legal systems that cannot or will
not control the conduct of their citizens, the need for
preventive and remedial measures to protect American children
from the increasing threat, the importance of not writing off
American children for the sake of good relations or any other
reason, and some specific recommended congressional actions,
most of which require only political will rather than tangible
resources.
With regard to foreign government support of these
offenses, Mr. Chairman, I will be using some information on my
daughter Amanda's case and my experience with the Swedish
system, but those are provided primarily as case studies or
examples.
I would identify five pillars of a governmental child
abduction system, and in particular I would list extreme gender
or national bias in the courts, payment of unlimited legal fees
for the child abductor at home and abroad, no enforceability of
visitation or parental rights for the non-local parent, no
principle of comity or respect for foreign law, foreign court
orders, and the legal system in question, and criminal
legislation that protects parents who abduct or wrongfully
retain children.
Despite the best efforts and intentions of Congress and
some individuals in the executive branch, the truth is that all
too often American parents are up against the full weight of
foreign governments in these cases. Without the help of
Congress along the lines I suggest below in the statement, more
American citizens will continue to be victimized by foreign
parents and their governments determined to abduct or retain
American children, withhold them abroad, and ignore United
States and international law.
Mr. Chairman, as a preliminary matter, it is very important
to stress this matter of no enforceable visitation or access to
children in European civil law countries. The point is that if
an American child is not returned under the Hague Convention,
the consequence is that that child is likely to be completely
lost to their American parents and families. In essence, the
exercise of regular child custody jurisdiction in Sweden or
Austria or Germany or Denmark effectively terminates the
parental rights of the American parent because in Sweden, for
example, a non-Swedish, non-custodial parent has no enforceable
rights of any kind. So, for those reasons, I have spent the
money I cited before in an effort to avoid Swedish custody
jurisdiction because of those consequences.
Amanda is not the first American child to be in this
situation. She is not the only one at the moment. There is the
child of Mark Larson of Orem, Utah, the children of Greg
O'Donohue of Burbank, California, and she will definitely not
be the last child without sweeping reforms of Swedish
legislation, policy, and attitudes. But Congress can do a great
deal to reduce the risks for American children and their
parents, while increasing the risks of wrongful conduct for
governments like Sweden and their citizens.
Mr. Chairman, these are not private child custody disputes.
Until the Post article mentioned appeared on June 29th, it is
unlikely that many of us would have thought possible what
Germany has done to the relationship between Lady Meyer and her
children, and that is the key point. It is Germany, its
governmental, legal, and social welfare systems, that has
committed these human rights violations just as it is Sweden
that has done everything possible to destroy Amanda's
relationship with her American family, friends, home, and
familiar environment in Virginia.
Individual parents capable of abducting or wrongfully
retaining their children exist everywhere, including the United
States. The key question is whether their governments will do
anything to control their conduct and protect the parental
rights of foreign parents, especially in light of the
international legal obligations of all countries under either
the Hague Convention or human rights treaties that guarantee
the role of both parents and the right of children with parents
of different nationalities to spend time in both countries. All
of these countries we are talking about are parties to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has 9 or 10
articles trying to guarantee the role of both parents in every
child's life, the role of both countries when parents live in
different countries, et cetera.
Mr. Chairman, the disinformation inherent in the false
claim of ``private child custody dispute'' is particularly
infuriating to American parents who have spent much of their
savings fighting against the deep pocket of a foreign
government in both United States and foreign courts simply to
maintain any sort of contact with their children, while at the
same time obeying all applicable laws in both countries.
Mr. Chairman, my statement contains a summary of the
Swedish Government system of international child abduction. I
will come back to it if there is time, but the purpose of
inserting it in my statement was to give an example of the kind
of country-by-country information in narrative form that should
be readily available to Congress, U.S. courts, attorneys, and
parents.
The Chairman. Well, I certainly agree. Let me say at this
point that I want each of the four of you to submit additional
printed or written material to be made a part of the printed
record so that it can be made available.
At the conclusion I am going to say a few things that I
hope will be encouraging to you.
You may proceed.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, concerning the details of Amanda's case,
voluminous documentation has already been given to committee
staff, and several items are appended to this statement,
including the unanimous decision of the Virginia Court of
Appeals in the case, a Swedish Government demand for
reimbursement of legal fees and child support that it has paid
the abductor, a Swedish criminal law which is intended and used
to protect Swedish child abductors and punish non-Swedish
parents, photographs showing Swedish police participation in
the continuing Federal and State felonies against Amanda and
me, and a two-page outline of the Swedish Government system of
supporting and financing parental child abduction.
Mr. Chairman, the facts of the case are set forth in my
statement. I would like to get to my proposed remedies, so I
will not spend too much time on the facts except to say that
four Swedish courts either ordered Amanda's return under the
Hague Convention or held that Sweden did not have jurisdiction
over her because she was only in Sweden temporarily as agreed.
After an endless Hague process of 17 months, rather than
the 6 weeks envisioned in the Hague Convention, the highest
court concerned reversed all the lower court rulings and
declared that Amanda would not be returned to the United
States.
I later obtained a sole custody order in Virginia, which
the Swedish Government then challenged in the courts of
Virginia, as I will mention in a moment.
In terms of an update, I have only seen Amanda for 12 hours
since December 1996, and the last time I was under police
supervision at her school. That gives an indication of the
resources that the Swedish Government is willing to utilize to
benefit their child abductors.
For the summers of 1997 and 1998, creative efforts by my
Swedish and American attorneys to arrange visitation in the
United States with guaranteed return to Sweden, because U.S.
court orders will be enforced against me, or any type of
supervised or unsupervised access in Sweden were summarily
rejected by the mother and her attorney. No assistance was
provided by the judge now assigned to the case, and the Swedish
judge who previously dismissed the mother's petition for sole
custody and upheld the Virginia order, has, not surprisingly,
been removed from the case.
In terms of the U.S. Government response, Mr. Chairman,
when an American parent faces this situation today, he or she
does so alone in many respects. Legal fees can quickly mount to
tens of thousands of dollars, and there is still no central
repository of information and expertise that can quickly and
effectively supply accurate, basic data on the legal system,
child custody institutions, law enforcement systems, social
welfare system, legal aid program, and Hague Convention
performance of the abductor's country. The left-behind American
parent, thus, has little basis for evaluating the options
available.
Mr. Chairman, prevention and deterrence are what is needed
and really is the key to eliminating much of the secrecy and
ignorance that leads to successful child abductions and
retentions. Effective vehicles already exist, such as the
annual human rights report and a country-by-country Hague
compliance report that may be enacted in the future.
Mr. Chairman, currently the counselors available to left-
behind parents have roughly a case load of 150. At present
there is no real advocate for left-behind American parents who
must deal with a hostile foreign government and an often
unresponsive U.S. Government, whereas foreign parents whose
children are abducted or retained in the U.S. have access to
the superb capabilities and staff of the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children. Left-behind American parents
would greatly benefit if the National Center were allowed to
play the same role for outgoing cases, abductions from the
United States, as it plays for incoming cases.
There is no monitoring of litigation in the United States
financed by foreign governments so that statements of interest
or amicus briefs could be filed in landmark cases. We are not
talking about great resources here. The burden, of course,
would be on the American parent to notify the U.S. Central
Authority that an appeal of a particular custody order is
pending and to see if there are interesting issues for the
Federal Government to address.
Mr. Chairman, foreign Central Authorities often work just
as hard to assist their nationals who abduct or retain children
as they do for their nationals who are victimized. I can give
several examples, but would like to get on to the International
Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993.
Mr. Chairman, this act should either be revised, if that
will result in greater willingness of U.S. Attorneys' offices
to utilize it, or be enforced as it stands. In my opinion it
can be enforced as it stands. Today, however, the 1993 act is
not only a failure generally in helping Americans, there have
only been one or two prosecutions nationwide, few indictments,
and fewer still provisional arrest requests to foreign
governments. This has become a very effective tool for foreign
child abductors both in United States courts and foreign
courts. Its mere existence and the purely theoretical
possibility of prosecution of foreign abductors or retainers is
being used against American parents in Hague Convention and
regular custody in the United States and abroad. Attorneys for
child abductors, including those hired and instructed by
foreign governments that are United States treaty partners,
have argued that the fear of prosecution under the 1993 act
justifies the denial of applications for return of American
children under the Hague Convention, as well as the refusal of
foreign abductors to appear in U.S. custody proceedings. This
latter argument concludes with the demand that U.S. courts
defer to the jurisdiction of the foreign court.
Mr. Chairman, in terms of the interpretation of the act by
U.S. Attorneys' offices, I have several comments on that, but I
know that I am running out of time here.
The Chairman. We are going to have some votes in just a
minute, and I want Mr. Marinkovich to have some time too. If
you would wind up as quickly as you can, bearing in mind that
all of this is in writing and we are going to give it further
circulation. We have given it to the media who are present this
morning. I happen to be personally interested in this thing,
and I have got a few comments about the Attorney General. So,
if you will conclude when you can. I am not rushing you, but--
--
Mr. Johnson. Well, I will conclude as quickly as possible,
Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Several additional preventive and remedial actions by
Congress are needed to level the playing field for American
parents. Congress is faced daily with many competing demands
that have serious resource implications. For the most part,
measures that will help in this area do not.
In particular, Mr. Chairman, I think there should be
general objectives: Dissemination of information to alert U.S.
courts, law enforcement authorities, family law practitioners,
and parents to what is going on in this field; the sending of a
clear worldwide message that the U.S. Government will not
tolerate the abduction or wrongful retention of American
children under any circumstances, and will make foreign
governments pay a price if they essentially encourage and
reward such conduct through financial and other direct support
to abductors; third, a reform of current U.S. law and practice
may be useful in certain areas.
Specially, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the U.S. Central
Authority, the committee, Congress should look at such factors
as training and expertise of personnel, continuity, and
institutional memory of personnel, case load, legal support
available, and so on.
As indicated, the National Center should be given a role to
help American parents in the situation.
Prevention, publicity, and accountability is important,
annual human rights reports. I have described in detail how
those could be utilized.
Hopefully a requirement that there be reporting on Hague
Convention compliance from the executive branch.
In my statement I list criteria that this committee may
wish to consider in terms of what kind of countries we want to
have bilateral law enforcement relationships with.
With regard to child support enforcement, Mr. Chairman, I
would ask that the committee look at pages 17 and 18 of my
statement to take measures to ensure that left-behind American
parents are not on the receiving end of foreign government
demands for child support for abducted children that are then
enforced by the U.S. Government against left-behind parents.
That is a possibility under current legislation. I have several
safeguards that I list in that area.
The Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act are
often used to deny information and documentation to American
parents. It seems to me that people like us have an absolute
right to know everything that our Government is doing or
failing to do in these cases.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would just propose an exception to
the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act so that individual
Americans who are the victims of crimes supported and financed
and facilitated by foreign governments be able to take those
governments into U.S. district court.
To sum up, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that to a large
extent these crimes of human rights violations against American
children and their parents succeed to a large extent because
the foreign governments concerned are confident that there is
no down-side risk. This guarantees future cases.
As a father who came within 18 hours of regaining his
daughter only to have a last minute stay from the Swedish court
change our lives forever, I can only express the hope that this
committee and Congress in general will ensure that there will
be consequences in the future for governments that facilitate,
finance, otherwise support, and reward the international
parental child abduction or wrongful retention abroad of
American children.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas A. Johnson
The Response of the United States to International Parental Child
Abduction and Wrongful Retention of American Children Abroad
This statement is submitted solely in my personal capacity as an
American citizen and as the father of Amanda Kristina Johnson, an
American child wrongfully retained in Sweden. Although I have been an
attorney for the U.S. Department of State for nineteen years, I make
this statement as a private citizen and do not in any way purport to
represent or speak for the Department of State. I have taken annual
leave to be here today and have not used government resources to
prepare or reproduce this statement.
Before proceeding, I would like to express my deepest appreciation
to Senator Helms for his interest in this subject, for his willingness
as chairman of the Committee to schedule a hearing on this subject, and
for his untiring commitment to assisting American children and their
parents subjected to the tragedy of international parental abduction
and wrongful retention. I am also grateful to other members of the
Committee for their interest and involvement in addressing this
subject. Finally, the dedication and hard work of the Committee's staff
in preparing for this hearing merits the admiration and thanks of all
left-behind American parents. In the midst of an otherwise terrible
experience for all such parents, the Committee's work and other recent
Congressional initiatives have been among the few rays of hope.
In the June 29, 1998 Washington Post article on the wrongful
retention in Germany of Lady Catherine Meyer's children, there was
consensus among those quoted that ``the system'' does not work. Having
spent more than $200,000 in Amanda's case litigating against the deep
pocket of the Swedish Government in nine different courts in two
countries, I fully agree. This Committee is to be commended for trying
to find out WHY the system does not work and for being willing to do
something about it.
Congress estimated the number of internationally abducted or
wrongfully retained American children at 10,000 when it passed the
International Parental Crime Act of 1993. With the increasing failures
of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction (less than a thirty percent return rate for American
children), the virtual refusal of the U.S. Justice Department to
utilize the 1993 Act when Hague remedies are inapplicable or have been
exhausted, the worst offending countries rightly emboldened by the
present certainty that they generally risk no real-world consequences
or even adverse publicity, and the absence of adequate preventive
measures, the situation is only getting worse for left-behind parents
who play by the rules in both countries concerned. They need to know
that foreign government compliance with the international legal
obligations they have undertaken in ratifying the Hague Convention and
applicable human rights treaties cannot be relied upon.
This statement addresses:
Direct foreign government involvement in and support for the
abduction and wrongful retention abroad of American children,
in violation of international treaty obligations;
Foreign legal systems that cannot or will not control the
conduct of their citizens in child custody matters and cannot
or will not protect the parental rights of American parents;
The need for preventive and remedial measures to protect
American children from the increasing threat of international
parental child abduction and wrongful retention abroad, and for
accountability within the United States Government concerning
the handling of these cases;
The two front war facing American parents and the importance
of not ``writing off'' American children for the sake of ``good
relations'' or any other reason;
Specific recommended Congressional actions, most of which
require only political will rather than tangible resources;
foreign government support for international parental child abduction
and wrongful retention of children
The principal purpose of this statement, as indicated above, is not
only to discuss individual cases or countries, but rather to provide a
general description of foreign government support for the abduction and
retention of American children, the response of the United States
Government, and proposed Congressional actions to assist American
children and parents affected by the crime of international parental
child abduction and retention. Accordingly, the following information
on my daughter Amanda's case and my experience with the Swedish legal
and social welfare systems is provided primarily as a case study or as
an example of what often confronts left-behind American parents.
1. Five Pillars of Governmental Child Abduction or Wrongful Retention
While the present overall Swedish legal and social welfare system
may well be one of the worst adversaries that a left-behind American
parent can face, at least some elements of that system exist in many
other countries, especially in European civil law countries. This does
not include the United kingdom, of course, which is often cited as a
model of how the system should work. In contrast, the Swedish system
happens to include all of what could be called the Five Pillars of
governmental child abduction and retention: no principle of comity in
the legal system, extreme gender or national bias in the courts,
payment of unlimited legal fees for the child abductor at home and
abroad, no enforceability of civil court orders (including child return
orders and visitation orders), and criminal legislation that protects
parents who abduct or wrongfully retain children. In a given case, only
one of these five ``pillars'' may be enough to ensure a successful
abduction or retention.
Regrettably, Amanda is only one of many American children abducted
or wrongfully withheld abroad. As Congress recognized in passing the
International Parental kidnapping Crime Act of 1993 (``the 1993 Act''),
Amanda's case and Sweden's indefensible conduct are not unique,
although the facts and circumstances of Mandy's case are particularly
aggravated. Despite the best efforts and intentions of Congress and
some individuals in the Executive Branch in recent years to combat the
continuing tragedy of international parental child abduction, the fact
remains that American parents whose children are abducted or wrongfully
retained abroad are all too often up against the full weight of foreign
governments (including Parties to the Hague Convention such as Sweden)
prepared to supply virtually unlimited financial and other resources
(e.g., government child psychiatrists and psychologists) to assist
their citizens who abduct or wrongfully retain children. What has
happened to Amanda and me can happen to any American citizen, already
has happened to many, and will unquestionably happen to more in the
future, unless Congress acts to prevent ``business as usual'' with the
governments involved and to provide other remedies. Without the help of
Congress along the lines suggested below, more American citizens will
continue to be victimized by foreign parents and their governments
determined to abduct or retain American children, withhold them abroad,
and ignore U.S. and international law. This statement is submitted in
the hope that Congress will act quickly and decisively to help other
Americans avoid the nightmare to which my family has been subjected.
2. No Enforceable Visitation or Other Parental Rights
As a preliminary consideration concerning any child abduction or
retention involving Sweden (and most other European civil law
countries), it must be noted that children not returned under the Hague
Convention are likely to be completely lost to their American parents
and families. The parental rights of an American parent may be
effectively terminated by the inevitable grant of sole custody to the
local national when a court in a European civil law country exercises
regular child custody jurisdiction. In Sweden, for example, a non-
Swedish, non-custodial parent has no enforceable parental rights. The
Swedish legal system and individual judges cannot control the conduct
of Swedish parents (or otherwise protect the rights of foreign parents)
because there is nothing comparable to contempt of court or any other
effective means of enforcing visitation or access under a Swedish
custody order. For Amanda, who lived with me half the time for several
years and travelled freely with me both in the U.S. and Europe, even
supervised visitation in Sweden is totally unenforceable and at the
whim and mercy of the child abductor. A new Swedish law entering into
effect today, ironically, will permit Swedish judges for the first time
to impose joint custody over the objections of one parent. However,
just as other seemingly progressive elements of Swedish child custody
law and policy only apply when both parents are Swedish (e.g., shifting
sole custody away from a parent that withholds a child1 unless, of
course, the consequence is that the child leaves Sweden), it is highly
unlikely that this new law will be applied in cases involving non-
Swedish parents. But even if it were, the terms of any future Swedish
joint custody order are just as unenforceable as any visitation awarded
under Swedish sole custody orders. Nothing has changed in that regard,
although intense and sustained international pressure on Sweden might
bring about reforms that include mechanisms comparable to contempt of
court.
For the reasons just given, I have spent more than $200,000 of my
savings to avoid Swedish custody jurisdiction because of the
consequences: a court order that even some U.S. authorities may view as
giving the ``color of law'' to termination of the child's American life
and my parental rights. Amanda is not the first American child to be
subjected to these violations of her human rights by Sweden, she is not
the only one at the moment (e.g., the child of Mark Larson of Orem,
Utah and the children of Greg O'Donohue of Burbank, California), and
she will definitely not be the last without sweeping reforms of Swedish
legislation, policy, and attitudes. As discussed below, Congress can do
a great deal to reduce the risks for American children and their
parents, while increasing the risks of wrongful conduct for governments
like Sweden and their citizens.
3. These Are Not ``Private Child Custody Disputes''
Until the Washington Post article mentioned above concerning Lady
Meyer appeared on June 29, it is likely that few Washington decision
makers and opinion leaders would have thought possible what Germany has
done to the relationship between Catherine Meyer and her children. And
that is the key point. It is Germany (its governmental, legal, and
social welfare systems) that has committed these human rights
violations, just as it is Sweden that has done everything possible to
destroy Amanda's relationship with her American family, friends, home,
and familiar environment in Virginia.
In short, these are NOT ``private child custody disputes,'' as
Germany and Sweden try to claim in these cases, and as those who may
wish to write off the children concerned and do business as usual with
such countries would like to believe. American parents in such cases
are often essentially alone against the power and wealth of the
governments concerned. Of course, individual parents capable of
internationally abducting or wrongfully retaining children are to be
found in every country. The question, therefore, is whether their
governments will control their conduct and protect the parental rights
of foreign parents, especially in light of the international legal
obligations of all countries under either (or both) the Hague
Convention or human rights treaties that guarantee the role of both
parents and the right of children with parents of different
nationalities to spend time in both countries.
The disinformation inherent in the false claim of ``private child
custody dispute'' is particularly infuriating to American parents who
have spent much of their savings fighting against the deep pocket of a
foreign government in both U.S. and foreign courts simply to maintain
contact with their children while obeying all applicable laws in both
countries. As indicated above but worth repeating, this ``private child
custody dispute'' red herring (an appropriate description taking into
account the conduct of some Scandinavian and Northern European
countries) also attempts to cover up what can only be described as
sophisticated and very well-financed governmental child abduction
systems, for example, in some European countries (other than the United
kingdom and Ireland) that may include some or all of the following:
(1) undeniable bias against foreign parents by the courts
(compared to the very high rate of returns of abducted children
from the U.S. ordered and enforced by U.S. courts);
(2) no enforceable visitation or other parental rights for
foreign parents (owing to the absence of anything comparable to
our contempt of court);
(3) no concept of comity (reciprocal enforcement of foreign
court orders, including custody orders agreed to by their
nationals);
(4) payment of unlimited legal fees for their nationals who
abduct or retain children in all litigation at home and in the
U.S. (in both Hague Convention and regular custody
proceedings);
(5) aggressive action by police and prosecutors against foreign
parents in enforcing criminal legislation specifically drafted
and intended to protect their child abductors/retainers;
(6) ``address protection'' programs that enable abductors/
retainers and the children involved to disappear even from U.S.
consular officers, with the aid of the police and social
welfare agencies.
Because it is nearly impossible for Americans to believe, it must
be repeated that, as a practical matter, the exercise of jurisdiction
over an abducted or wrongfully retained American child in a regular
child custody proceeding by a German or Swedish or Austrian or Danish
court (with the inevitable grant of sole custody to the non-American
abducting parent) is equivalent to termination of the parental
relationship between the child and the American parent. Even if some
form of access or visitation is awarded on paper, noncustodial parents
have no legally enforceable rights of any kind in such countries.
4. Summary of the Swedish Government System of International Child
Abduction and Wrongful Retention of Children
The following is an example of the kind of country-by-country
information in narrative form that should be readily available to
Congress, U.S. courts, attorneys, and parents:
Cases of abduction and wrongful retention of children by a Swedish
parent are not merely ``private custody disputes,'' in view of the lack
of effective remedies provided by the Swedish legal and social welfare
systems to the left-behind parent and the extensive Swedish government
financial, law enforcement, social welfare, and other support supplied
to Swedish parents who engage in abduction/retention of children.
In international cases where only one parent is Swedish
(particularly where the mother is Swedish), children not returned under
the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction are, as a practical matter, completely lost to their non-
Swedish parents unless the Swedish mother decides otherwise. This is
the result of the Swedish legal system's inability to effectively
control the conduct of Swedish parents and protect the rights of non-
Swedish parents in the absence of any judicial power comparable to
contempt of court. In regular child custody proceedings, Swedish courts
invariably grant sole custody to Swedish mothers and, as noted, have no
power to enforce visitation for fathers. Even in cases where a foreign
parent has sole or joint custody under a non-Swedish custody order and
no Swedish custody order exists, there is no concept of comity in the
Swedish legal system (despite Sweden's obligation under Article I of
the Hague Convention to ensure respect for the rights of custody and
access under the law of other States Parties).
Swedish law enforcement authorities have been informed by the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs that foreign custody orders ``have no
validity in Sweden,'' aggressively interfere with any effort by a
foreign parent to exercise his custody rights in Sweden and may arrest
and prosecute him under a unique Swedish penal law that effectively
protects and rewards Swedish child abductors/retainers. In both Hague
Convention and regular child custody litigation in Sweden and abroad
(including all possible appeals in Sweden, the other country concerned,
and the European system), the Swedish social welfare system provides
unlimited payment of legal fees for most Swedish nationals. This
exhausts the resources of most non-Swedish parents, and, in any event,
Swedish authorities will not enforce or otherwise respect foreign
appellate judgments against Swedish parents. Non-Swedish parents with
very low incomes may be provided legal aid for proceedings in Sweden,
but this does not help anyone with an income of more than $30,000.
Moreover, Swedish authorities aggressively seek reimbursement from the
left-behind parent for the legal aid and child support it has provided
to the abductor. Examples are attached.
In non-Hague cases, as demonstrated by the now leading decision of
Sweden's supreme court in the Ascough case during 1997 (children of
Australian/British father and Swedish mother residing in Singapore),
the Swedish courts will take jurisdiction and award sole custody to a
Swedish mother even in cases where the children were born outside of
Sweden, clearly reside outside Sweden, have never resided in or even
visited Sweden, and were unquestionably abducted to Sweden.
In summary, Sweden's overall legal and social welfare system
concerning child custody and parental child abduction/retention does
not comply with numerous provisions of human rights treaties to which
Sweden is a Party, notably the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
the European Convention on Human Rights, and the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights as a result of six factors: the
undeniable bias of Swedish courts in favor of Swedish mothers, the
absence of anything comparable to contempt of court to enforce
visitation for fathers, the unlimited financial support received in
Sweden and abroad by Swedish child abductors, enforcement by Swedish
law enforcement authorities of a criminal law that effectively protects
and rewards Swedish child abductors, the lack of comity with respect to
non-Swedish court orders, and the refusal of Sweden to extradite or
effectively prosecute Swedish child abductors. Most notably, Sweden's
legal and social welfare system are inconsistent with both the letter
and spirit of Sweden's obligations under the Convention on the Rights
of the Child to ensure contact with both parents and, in international
cases, with both countries. Thus, Sweden cannot ensure compliance with
the following articles of the Convention: 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18,
29, and 35.
5. Amanda's Case
Voluminous documentation concerning Amanda's wrongful retention in
Sweden by a Swedish diplomat and the Government of Sweden, as well as
information on other American children abducted to Sweden, has already
been supplied to Committee staff. An updated chronology of the case is
attached to this statement, along with:
The unanimous decision of the Virginia Court of Appeals
upholding the Virginia Custody Order;
The Virginia Supreme Court Order dismissing further appeals;
Swedish Government demands for reimbursement of legal fees
and child support paid to the abductor;
A Swedish criminal law intended and used to protect Swedish
child abductors and punish non-Swedish parents who attempt to
exercise their custody rights;
Photographs showing Swedish police participation in the
continuing Federal and state felonies against Amanda and me,
and
An outline of the Swedish Government's System of supporting
and financing parental child abduction.
With full support in every conceivable way from the Government of
Sweden, Amanda has literally been held hostage in Sweden since early
1995), in violation of:
U.S. civil law and court orders to which the mother agreed
in open court;
U.S. Federal and state criminal law;
Sweden's international legal obligations under several
treaties (The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction, the Convention on the Rights of
the Child, the European Convention on Human Rights, and other
human rights instruments);
Sweden's own civil and criminal laws on joint custody and
child abduction (which are never enforced against Swedish
mothers), and
The eligibility requirements for payment of all legal fees
in Sweden and abroad by the Swedish Government (which are
apparently conveniently waived for Swedish abductors).
The facts of the case are clear. Amanda, a U.S. citizen and
resident from birth (November 11, 1987), is also a Swedish citizen. She
was a U.S. Government dependent during her first two years while I was
posted at the U.S. Mission in Geneva. Mandy then lived with me in
Virginia roughly fifty percent of the time until age 6, attending three
years of preschool and kindergarten at Browne Academy in Alexandria,
Virginia. She spent the rest of her time in New York with her mother,
Anne Franzen, who was the lawyer at the Swedish Consulate with lead
responsibility for child abduction and custody matters, and who was
actually offered the position of Head of the Swedish Central Authority
for the Hague Convention upon leaving New York. Despite being
wrongfully withheld outside the U.S. for nearly four years now, Amanda
has still lived longer in an American diplomatic community or the U.S.
itself than in Sweden. She should have been living again in the U.S.
since the spring of 1995 under the agreed terms of a December 1993
Virginia custody order and subsequent enforcement orders, which make
clear that Amanda's habitual residence continues to be Virginia, that
the Virginia courts have continuing exclusive jurisdiction over her
case, and that the parents are prohibited from seeking custody
modification in any court anywhere in the world without the consent of
the Virginia court.
The case against Anne Franzen (Deputy Assistant Under Secretary for
Human Rights in the Swedish Foreign Ministry at the time) was so strong
that four Swedish courts either ordered Amanda's return under the Hague
Convention or held that Sweden did not have jurisdiction over Amanda
because she was only in Sweden temporarily in accordance with the
Virginia Custody Order to which the mother had agreed. After endless
delays, stays of execution, appeals, and litigation financed for the
mother by the Swedish Government in 8 separate proceedings in 6 courts
(a Hague process that lasted 17 months instead of the 6 weeks set forth
in the Convention), the final court from which there was no appeal (the
Swedish Supreme Administrative Court or Regeringsratten) reversed all
the lower court rulings in a May 1996 decision declared by the U.S.
Government in diplomatic notes to be a violation of the Convention and
rejected by the highest courts of Virginia.
On August 9, 1996, with the abducting mother represented by counsel
paid by the Swedish Government, the Virginia Court granted me sole and
exclusive custody, made contempt findings, and issued several other
forms of relief. There has never been a Swedish custody order of any
kind concerning Amanda. The Virginia Custody Order remains the only one
in the world. But Amanda continues to be wrongfully withheld from me,
the rest of her American family, her home and familiar environment, and
her country by her mother and by the Government of Sweden through a
legal and social welfare system that fails to meet even minimal
standards of due process of law (e.g., no rules of evidence and no
prohibitions on ex parte communications with judges).
Since December 1995, Amanda has been able to see me on four
occasions, for a total of 12 hours. On the second occasion (September
16, 1996), after picking Amanda up at her school as a custodial parent
unwilling to subject the two of us to the continued degradation of
supervised visitation, I was wrongfully detained in her presence four
hours later at our hotel (where I had informed the mother we would be)
by four Swedish policemen at the abducting mother's request. I was held
in solitary confinement for nearly 48 hours, despite (or actually
because of) the fact that I have sole custody under the only Custody
Order in the case and have joint custody even under Swedish law.
Although I was released, never charged with any offense, and
compensated by the Swedish Government for wrongful detention, the
incident has done incalculable harm to Amanda and to my relationship
with her.
On the third and fourth occasions, in December 1996, I was only
allowed to see Mandy under police guard at her school, with the police
challenging the presence of the Vice Consul from the American Embassy
on one occasion and making a further mockery of my joint custody
``rights'' in Sweden (see attached photographs of Swedish police car at
Amanda's school). Amanda and I have not seen each other since that
demeaning experience in December 1996. Telephone contact ceased in
August 1997. Every element of joint custody has been violated: no
school or medical records, no photographs, no information on activities
or general welfare have been provided to me. There has been no response
to any of the countless letters and packages sent to Amanda for more
than a year, and I do not know if they have been received. For the
summers of 1997 and 1998, creative efforts by my Swedish and American
attorneys to arrange visitation in the United States with guaranteed
returns to Sweden (U.S. court orders ARE enforceable) or any type of
supervised or unsupervised access in Sweden were summarily rejected by
the mother and her attorney. No assistance was provided by the judge
now assigned to the case. The judge who previously dismissed the
mother's petition for sole custody and upheld the Virginia Order has,
not surprisingly, been removed from the case.
united states government response to international parental child
abduction and wrongful retention of children abroad
Today, when an American parent faces the nightmare of international
child abduction or wrongful retention abroad, he or she does so alone
in most respects. Legal fees and other expenses can quickly mount to
tens of thousands of dollars. A decade after U.S. ratification of the
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction,
there is still no Central repository of reliable information and
expertise in the Executive Branch that can quickly and effectively
supply accurate basic data on the legal system, child custody
institutions, law enforcement system, social welfare system, legal aid
program, and Hague Convention performance of the abductor's country.
The left-behind American parent thus has little basis for evaluating
the options available.
Some of the information recently supplied to this Committee by the
Executive Branch is inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading,
particularly the implication that ``everybody does it'' and that the
United States is no better than most other countries. That implication
is false. Moreover, the frequent claim that elementary but essential
information on a variety of matters concerning foreign legal systems in
connection with child abduction or child custody is ``not available''
to the Executive Branch is discouraging. This information is available
and could be obtained without difficulty or expense from American
embassies, experts in the field, local attorneys, and American parents
who have learned the hard way.
Although all concerned would presumably agree that prevention and
deterrence of child abduction or wrongful retention are the ultimate
goals, little is being done in this area. Dissemination of information
on the key institutions, laws, and child custody practices of other
countries is the key to eliminating much of the secrecy and ignorance
that leads to successful child abductions and retentions. Countries
whose legal systems and child custody institutions guarantee frequent
non-compliance with the Hague Convention or no visitation or other
rights for American parents need to be publicly identified and analyzed
in depth.
As suggested below, effective vehicles such as the annual human
rights reports already exist, and Congress has also passed legislation
that would require an annual country-by-country Hague Convention
compliance report that should be broadened to include cases not
resolved within six months, cases involving non-Hague countries, and
lists of countries that have any of the 5 Pillars of a governmental
child abduction stem mentioned above. Maximum use should be made of the
Internet and other established channels in the family law and consular
affairs fields to ensure that U.S. courts, attorneys, and parents with
children at risk are aware of the likely consequences of an abduction
to or wrongful retention in a given country.
Left-behind parents often find themselves more knowledgeable in
many ways than those in the Executive Branch who are supposed to help
them, especially in view of the fact that case officers now are
responsible for around 150 cases, according to a recent statement by
the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs. If those who are
supposed to help (or their superiors) are primarily interested in
maintaining ``good relations'' with the other countries concerned or
declare that they do not work for the American people but rather for
the Secretary of State or are fearful that pressing too hard in a
current case will jeopardize assistance from a particular country in
future cases, the plight of the children involved and their left-behind
parents worsens. In the latter case, such a classic policy of
appeasement is no more successful in dealing with child abduction than
it has historically been in any other field.
At present, there is no real advocate for left-behind American
parents, who must deal with a hostile foreign government and an often
unresponsive U.S. Government, whereas foreign parents whose children
are abducted or retained in the United States have access to the superb
capabilities and staff of the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children (NCMEC) because of its role in dealing with ``incoming'' cases
(i.e., abductions to or retentions in the United States). Left-behind
American parents would greatly benefit if NCMEC were allowed to play
the same role for ``outgoing'' cases.
There is no monitoring of U.S. litigation financed by foreign
governments against left-behind American parents so that U.S.
Government statements of interest or amicus curiae briefs can be filed
in landmark cases. In fact, this would not require a significant
increase in resources. In two recent cases, statements of interest from
the U.S. Government of only a page or two would have been invaluable.
In one case, the American parent prevailed in upholding a custody order
in the highest courts of his state for an abducted child, but only at
considerable expense. In the other case, the American parent lost in
the 10th Circuit for acting precisely in accordance with U.S.
Government policy and advice in Hague Convention cases. In view of the
strong dissenting opinion, literally a few sentences in a U.S.
Government statement of interest might have made a difference.
In contrast, foreign Central Authorities often work just as hard to
assist their nationals who abduct or wrongfully retain children as they
do for their nationals who are victims of these offenses. In the case
of the Swedish Central Authority, its support of child abduction and
wrongful retention include such means as coordination of litigation
strategy in Sweden and the U.S. against American parents. This has
included creative attempts to a) use the Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction Act in U.S. courts to obtain for Sweden the status of an
American state for purposes of jurisdiction and enforcement of Swedish
custody orders, and, b) use the mere existence of the 1993
International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act in both Swedish and U.S.
courts as a justification for not returning children to the U.S. on the
pretext that the Swedish abductor might be prosecuted. Other activities
of the Swedish Central Authority have included release of documents and
information to Swedish abductors and their attorneys, refusal to
respond to important U.S. Central Authority inquiries (a July 1995
Hague Application for access to Amanda and a 6-page memorandum from the
U.S. Central Authority in August 1995 have never been formally
answered), informing the Swedish police and prosecutors that American
child custody orders have no validity in Sweden in contravention of the
whole object and purpose of the Hague Convention, translation only of
court decisions and other documents favorable to the Swedish abductor,
and so on. Such conduct by a foreign government, especially its Central
Authority for an international convention againstchild abduction and
wrongful retention, should receive the widest possible exposure and
censure.
Litigation in the United States financed by foreign governments
against Americans who are already the victims of crimes committed by
nationals of those governments should at least raise some serious
questions about possible abuse of sovereign immunity. For example, the
Swedish Government attempts to put a legal gloss on the abductions and
wrongful retentions committed by its citizens by pursuing frivolous
appeals of U.S. custody orders all the way to the supreme court of the
states concerned even when the children have been held hostage in
Sweden for years. Roughly four years ago, Julia Larson was abducted to
Sweden from Utah for the third time and my daughter Amanda was
wrongfully retained in Sweden. Neither child has been in the United
States nor been allowed normal contact with their American families,
but the Swedish Government has considered it necessary to try to make
everything look ``legat'' by attacking the Utah and Virginia custody
orders in extremely expensive and time-consuming litigation. An effort
in Virginia to satisfy a money judgment against the abducting mother by
garnishing the retainer paid to her attorney was blocked by an
affidavit (attached) declaring that all funds held by the law firm are
directly from ``the Kingdom of Sweden's legal aid agency.''
In many respects, an improved United States response requires a
change in attitude so that senior officials acknowledge that foreign
legal and social welfare institutions which permit the successful
commission of crimes against American children and their parents are
not ``private child custody disputes'' or merely the errors of an
``independent judiciary.'' Regarding the latter point, the judges are
not particularly independent in some European countries. They become
judges relatively early in their careers, do not have life tenure, and
depend on the Ministry of Justice for future assignments. In any event,
evidence of foreign government involvement in and support for parental
child abduction or retention by their nationals should not be ignored.
International Parental Kidnaping Crime Act of 1993
This Act should either be revised (if that will result in greater
willingness of U.S. Attorney's offices to utilize it) or be enforced as
it stands when Hague Convention remedies are exhausted or inapplicable,
or the left-behind parent so requests. At present, despite the best
intentions of Congress, the 1993 Act is not only a failure in helping
Americans (there have only been one or two prosecutions nationwide, few
indictments, and fewer still provisional arrest requests under the
Act), but it has become an effective tool for foreign child abductors
and retainers. Under some extradition treaties, it actually creates
dual criminality where none existed before, so that American parents
who rescue their abducted children can be extradited to countries that
refuse to extradite their nationals for parental child abduction or any
other offense and also refuse to return children consistently (or at
all) under the Hague Convention.
Moreover, to add insult to injury for the victims of child
abduction or wrongful retention who know that the Department of Justice
will generally not implement the 1993 Act, its mere existence (and the
purely theoretical possibility of prosecution of foreign abductors or
retainers) is being used against American parents in Hague Convention
and regular custody litigation in the U.S. and abroad. Attorneys for
child abductors/retainers, including those hired and instructed by
foreign governments that are U.S. treaty ``partners,'' have argued that
the fear of prosecution under the 1993 Act justifies the denial of
applications for return of children under the Hague Convention, as well
as refusal of abductors/retainers to appear in U.S. custody
proceedings. This latter argument concludes with a demand that U.S.
courts defer to the jurisdiction of the foreign court.
That was precisely the argument made in Virginia to the trial court
and the Court of Appeals in my daughter's case by the attorney hired by
the Swedish Government. Fortunately, the Virginia judge cut through the
argument by asking whether the abductor would immediately return to
Virginia with the child if given immunity from prosecution. This bad
faith argument fared no better in the Court of Appeals. But the
argument that the children should not be sent back to the U.S. under
the Hague Convention if the local parent faces criminal charges will
almost certainly succeed in many foreign courts.
With regard to implementation of the 1993 Act, the approach being
taken by some U.S. Attorney's offices concerning the Act cannot
possibly be consistent with the intent of Congress. Although the Act
places both wrongful removal (or abduction) of a child from the United
States and wrongful retention abroad on the same level, as does the
Hague Convention, wrongful retention abroad is effectively being read
out of the Act by some prosecutors as not serious enough to merit
indictment.
Moreover, some prosecutors have unilaterally added as an
affirmative defense that a child abductor or retainer is attempting to
obtain a local custody order abroad and would already have succeeded so
but for Hague Convention proceedings freezing the local custody
process. In like manner, some prosecutors are incorrectly asserting
that a foreign court order denying return of the child(ren) under the
Hague Convention constitutes a defense under the Act. Disregarding the
entire object and purpose of the Hague Convention in Article I (respect
for the custody laws of other Parties to the Convention), such
prosecutors apparently have no difficulty with individuals who clearly
violate U.S. court orders and custody rights, as long as they are also
attempting to persuade a foreign court to ignore the orders and
unilaterally take jurisdiction over the case. In essence, this approach
gives immunity from prosecution, so long as abductors are using the
legal process in their home country, no matter how corrupt,
incompetent, or biased against foreign parents it may be.
Even when Hague Convention remedies are inapplicable or have been
exhausted, and thus utilization of law enforcement mechanisms will not
jeopardize return of the child(ren), left-behind parents hear a litany
of excuses for failure to implement the Act or to use it in any way to
pressure abductors into returning the child(ren). The latter approach
does not constitute misuse of the criminal process to achieve a civil
law objective, as some might argue. Rather, it would constitute use of
a criminal law to bring a halt to criminal conduct, which is presumably
what Congress intended. At the moment, the point is moot because the
1993 Act is being used far more by foreign governments against
Americans than by the U.S. Department of Justice.
In litigation financed by foreign governments, as noted above, its
mere existence is cited as a reason not to return children to the
United States in European courts and as a reason to defer to European
jurisdiction in U.S. courts. Adding to the irony of the general refusal
by U.S. law enforcement authorities to implement the 1993 Act is the
very aggressive enforcement by some European law enforcement
authorities of laws or policies that protect local child abductors and
target foreign parents who attempt to exercise their sole or joint
custody rights. An example of such a criminal law from the Swedish
penal code is attached to this statement. It has been used as a
justification for aggressive Swedish police action against several
American fathers, including me, as described above.
Ironically, the record of U.S. courts under the Hague Convention in
recent years is nearly perfect concerning returns of children to some
of the worst violators of the Convention, including Sweden. There have
in fact been essentially voluntary returns of children to the United
States from such countries. But a determined Swedish or Danish or
Austrian or German child abductor/retainer (among others) will almost
never have to comply with return orders from their own courts. Again,
there are no truly effective means of enforcing civil court orders in
European civil law countries, including Hague Convention return orders.
Police assistance to enable an American or other non-local parent to
take a child out of the country is virtually impossible. Moreover,
European abductors/retainers have the possibility of further delaying
and frustrating the Hague Convention process by utilizing the European
Human Rights Commission and Court in Strasbourg.
Especially in Scandinavia, mothers also increasingly have the
option of going ``underground'' or otherwise stalling long enough to
have the case reopened, with the best interests of the child(ren) then
being found to require remaining in place because they are fully
resettled. Of course, in social welfare States where the governments
continue to pay legal fees, child maintenance, and other allowances to
child abductors, the authorities can easily find those who go
``underground'' if they want to.
While a few countries that provide legal aid to both parties in
Hague cases without regard to need (e.g., the United Kingdom) may have
a valid complaint about the failure of the United States to provide
legal aid to anyone, the situation is far worse where a government pays
unlimited legal fees at home and abroad for its child abductors, so
that left-behind American parents are confronted by the deep pocket of
a foreign government not only in foreign courts but also in U.S.
courts. The point is that foreign parents are not in any way up against
the U.S. Government in abduction cases here.
Several additional preventive and remedial actions by Congress are
needed to ``level the playing field'' for American parents facing off
against foreign governments. Congress is faced daily with many
competing demands that have serious resource implications. This request
does not. It seeks only the requisite political will to accomplish the
objectives of better protecting American children from international
parental kidnapping, especially when such conduct is directly supported
by foreign governments.
Taking into account that the high rate of return from a very few
countries (e.g., the United kingdom) makes even the overall return
average of thirty percent misleading, the Hague Convention success rate
with certain countries is so low that the reality facing many American
parents is a stark choice between abandoning their children or
conducting a rescue operation. That reality and the country-by-country
details behind it need to be comprehensively disseminated to all U.S.
courts, family law practitioners, law enforcement authorities, and the
general public.
proposed congressional actions against international child abduction
Congress may wish to give serious consideration to specific
proposed actions listed below in order to accomplish three general
objectives:
(1) Dissemination of sufficient information to alert U.S.
courts, law enforcement authorities, family law practitioners,
and parents in bi-national situations concerning the
difficulties of gaining the return of American children from
particular countries;
(2) The sending of a clear worldwide message that the U.S.
Government will not tolerate the abduction or wrongful
retention of American children under any circumstances and will
make foreign governments pay a price if they essentially
encourage and reward such conduct through financial and other
direct support to abductors; and,
(3) Reform of current U.S. law and practice (both civil and
criminal) that can work against American citizens, thus aiding
and abetting the abduction of American children by foreign
citizens and their governments.
Under the circumstances, the following proposals do not constitute
micro-management.
(1) U.S. Central Authority
PROPOSALS: (A) Consider whether it is fair to all parties concerned
for the CA to remain in the State Department, taking into account such
factors as:
training and expertise of personnel;
continuity and institutional memory of personnel;
number of personnel available;
caseload of personnel;
legal support available;
the balance between child abduction/retention cases and
``good relations'' in bilateral relations;
the role of regional bureaus and American embassies, and
general openness and a willingness to provide left-behind
American parents with all available information and
documentation.
(B) Consider the vital assistance and support for both the U.S.
Central Authority and left-behind American parents if the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) is given the same
role for ``outgoing'' cases (i.e., abductions from the U.S. and
retentions of American children abroad) as it now has for ``incoming''
cases.
(2) Prevention, Publicity, and Accountability
PROPOSALS: (A) In the ``children's rights'' section of the annual
human rights report on each country, direct that the child custody
system be summarized, including gender bias or bias against foreigners
based on statistical evidence, enforceability of visitation/access for
noncustodial parents (i.e., is there anything comparable to contempt of
court?), payment of legal fees for host country nationals in custody or
abduction cases, criminal legislation that protects abductors/
withholders, compliance (or not) with the relevant provisions in the
Convention on the Rights of Child on the role of both parents, the
right of children in international cases to spend time in both
countries, etc. The U.S. is not a Party but has signed and complies
with the relevant provisions to a far greater extent than most States
Parties.
Each year, the annual human rights report is eagerly awaited,
widely disseminated, and, unlike most government reports, widely read
throughout the world. One important function that the annual human
rights reports should perform is prevention, as ``human rights
advisories'' comparable to travel advisories; i.e., to alert potential
victims of current and/or ongoing, systemic human rights abuses. If
just one child from ANY country is saved from being lost because a
judge, attorney, parent, or family friend reads or hears about
government-supported child abduction/retention in a given country, then
an accurate and complete report will have accomplished something both
worthwhile and right. An accurate and complete report on countries such
as Sweden would constitute a great service to American and other
parents who might be warned in time to avoid losing their children.
(B) If the President signs H.R. 1757, amend Section 1803 (Reporting
on Hague Convention Compliance) to cover retention cases and any case
not resolved within 6 months, and to include lists of countries that do
not have anything comparable to contempt of court and cannot enforce
their own civil court orders, that pay the legal fees of their
abductors/retainers, that have criminal legislation which effectively
protects their abductors/retainers, etc. If the President does not sign
the bill, transform Section 1803 into stand-alone legislation with the
suggested revisions.
(3) Bilateral Relationships
PROPOSAL: Review what type of relationship the United States should
have with governments that:
are directly engaged in facilitating, financing, otherwise
supporting, and rewarding criminal conduct against American
citizens;
have in place any elements of a governmental child abduction
system;
have refused return of American children abducted/retained
in violation of U.S. law or court orders;
have unresolved cases of abduction/retention of American
children with no meaningful or enforceable access for the
American parent;
use their law enforcement authorities aggressively against
American parents whose children have been abducted/retained and
rarely if ever use them to assist American parents;
have failed to compensate American parents of abducted/
retained children for their legal and other expenses, and
abuse their sovereign immunity by financing litigation in
U.S. courts against American parents while claiming that the
cases are private custody disputes and refusing to respect/
enforce results adverse to their citizens.
(4) Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs)
PROPOSAL: Consider whether the United States should provide
assistance against a left-behind American parent in any case where
there has been a child abduction/retention in violation of U.S. law or
court orders AND whether the United States should provide assistance
under any foreign law that criminalizes the attempts of custodial
parents (sole or joint) to exercise their parental rights in response
to abduction/retention of their child(ren). (e.g., See attached Swedish
penal law which has been used against several American parents of
abducted/retained children).
(5) Child Support Enforcement
PROPOSAL: Amend P.L. 104-193 (Section 459A) or take other action
to:
(A) prohibit any child support enforcement arrangement with a
country that does not have a legal system providing prompt, adequate
and effective enforceable, unsupervised access/visitation IN THE UNITED
STATES by means of something comparable to contempt of court; and
(B) prohibit any child support enforcement agreement unless it
contains ironclad guarantees that no American parent of an abducted/
retained child will be affected, harassed, or penalized in any way AND
it expressly excludes any case where there is or has at any time been:
a violation of a U.S. custody order or U.S. custody law;
a violation of a Federal or state criminal law;
a denial of a request for return of the child(ren) under the
Hague Convention or a failure of the foreign Central Authority
to comply with other Convention obligations;
termination or reduction of any support obligation by a U.S.
court;
an unpaid judgment or fine imposed by a U.S. court on the
foreign parent;
a failure by the foreign government or its courts to provide
rapidly enforceable unsupervised, and generous visitation in
the United States with police assistance and with no legal aid
provided to the foreign parent violating a foreign or U.S.
custody order;
an inability or refusal by the foreign government/courts to
control the conduct of the foreign parent through contempt of
court or other effective means, and
an inability or refusal by the foreign government/courts to
protect and promote the exercise of parental rights by the
American parent.
(6) Implementation of the International Parental Kidnapping Act of
1993, 18 US 1204
PROPOSAL: Consider remedial actions based on Justice Department
response, if any, to Senate Judiciary Committee questions:
Require annual DJ report on number of requests from parents
or their counsel for indictments, number of indictments, number
of extradition requests, number of actual prosecutions, etc.
(7) Privacy Act
PROPOSAL: Require that left-behind parents be provided with the
option (in writing) to waive all Privacy Act rights so that their names
can be given to parents involved with the same country and to
organizations (such as NCMEC) that can help:
Prohibit use of the Act to withhold any information or
documents from left-behind American parents, and
Prohibit use of the Act on behalf of abducted American
children or abductors (even if U.S. citizens) as a basis for
withholding information or documents from left-behind American
parents.
(8) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
PROPOSAL: Prohibit use of FOIA as a basis for refusing release of
ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to American parents in child abduction/
retention cases (information, documents, diplomatic and other
government-to-government correspondence, etc.)
These are not matters of national security; a left-behind
American parent has an absolute right to know everything that
his government has done or failed to do to obtain the return of
the American children concerned.
(9) Exception to Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
PROPOSAL: Create an exception to the FSIA giving American citizens
a cause of action in U.S. district courts against foreign governments
(and all their assets in the United States) that directly engage in,
facilitate, or otherwise support criminal conduct against them and
their children.
(10) Bilateral Claims
PROPOSAL: Consider the use of bilateral U.S. Government claims on
behalf of American children and their parents against foreign
governments that have permitted their nationals to abduct/retain
American children (and perhaps provided assistance and support).
(11) Office of Foreign Missions
PROPOSAL: Require OFM to: (A) regulate and monitor the hiring and
payment by foreign governments of American attorneys in cases of
abduction/retention of American children where U.S. civil/criminal law
or U.S. court orders have been violated, and
(B) monitor and discourage any harassment of American citizens by
foreign government agencies demanding either ``child support'' for
abducted/retained American children or reimbursement to the foreign
government of the legal fees it has paid for someone who has abducted
or retained American children.
In an era of budget constraints, it is reasonable for Congress and
the American people to ask what U.S. Government interest is more
important than protecting our youngest citizens from the impact of
crime. And international parental child abduction or wrongful retention
of children are crimes, as well as human rights violations. The Hague
Convention is a noble effort to remedy criminal conduct by civil means,
but all too many countries (notably European civil law countries) knew
at the time they ratified the Convention that their basic child custody
laws and institutions were (and still are) incompatible with full
compliance.
All of us are well aware that there are many ways to lose a child,
none of them acceptable. But foreign government support for and
participation in the loss of a child is intolerable. To a large extent,
these crimes and human rights violations against American children and
their parents succeed because the foreign governments concerned are
confident that there is simply no downside risk; i.e., no real-world
consequences for ignoring or dismissing the U.S. Governments interests
and views. This guarantees future cases. As a father who came within 18
hours of regaining his daughter only to have a last-minute stay from a
Swedish court change our lives forever, I can only express the hope
that this Committee and Congress in general will ensure that there will
be consequences in the future for governments that facilitate, finance,
otherwise support, and reward the international parental child
abduction and wrongful retention abroad of American children.
[Additional information submitted by Thomas Johnson appears
in the appendix.]
The Chairman. Mr. Marinkovich.
STATEMENT OF PAUL MARINKOVICH, SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Marinkovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. By the way, I have been sitting here looking
at the pictures of your little boy and your little girl, Mr.
Sylvester. I happen to be the father of three and grandfather
of seven. I have got at least 10 good reasons to thank God that
I am not in your place. That is the undergirding of my interest
in this thing.
I have some further comment about the Attorney General and
her sincerity which may encourage you.
You may proceed.
Mr. Marinkovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should hope
that no one should have to go through what the people at this
table are.
I wish to thank this committee for the honor of speaking
about America's most precious resource. The most precious
resource that we have in America are children.
I brought my 14-year-old son Michael here today--he is
videotaping me--because he has a great interest in seeing his
brother again.
The Chairman. Where is Michael?
Mr. Marinkovich. Michael is right here.
The Chairman. Michael, come up here.
Senator Biden. You can bring your camera, Michael.
The Chairman. You sit down here and you be judge of your
father. How about that?
Mr. Marinkovich. Mr. Chairman, you are going to get me in
trouble now. He is the boss. You look good up there, Mike.
My 6-year-old son Gabriel was lost to an act of
international parental abduction on August 19th, 1996. Over the
last 773 days, I have been engaged in a battle on many
different fronts to ensure his safe return.
As both a father and as the Executive Director and co-
founder of the International Child Rescue League, I find it
important to hold the proper context in both my case and when I
interact with others, and I want to share that with you. It is
the mission statement that hangs on our walls of both our east
coast office with Mr. John LeBoe in Florida and our west coast
office in southern California. It is as follows.
By holding the sacred bond of parent and child in its
highest regard, we stand for the rights of all children to
receive the love of both their parents. We have faith that all
parents really want to do what is best for their children, but
realize that sometimes decisions are made out of anger rather
than out of love. It is our firm belief that through individual
case support of missing and abducted children and by enrolling
the people of every nation in this vision, that a miracle is
indeed possible. We work toward the day when children
everywhere will be blessed with a world in which parental
kidnapping is no longer a threat to their growth, development,
and stability.
Mr. Chairman and committee, I am here today in support of
creating that miracle.
Let us first look at the actual act of parental abduction
itself and how it relates to children. The National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children, who I have a lot of respect
for, created a federally funded publication to educate and
advise law enforcement officials in their investigation of
parental abduction cases, and that publication is called
Missing and Abducted Children: A Law Enforcement Guide to Case
Investigation and Management. It advises law enforcement
personnel who are involved in this type of case as follows, and
I quote. ``The emotional scarring that is caused by these
events,'' child abduction, ``requires that officers recognize
family abduction not as a harmless offense where two parents
are arguing over who loves the child more, but instead as an
insidious form of child abuse.''
Now, in 1993 the American people and this Congress spoke
their will and passed into law the International Parental
Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993 and set something into motion. It
states--and I quote--``Whoever removes a child from the United
States or retains a child outside of the United States with the
intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 3
years, or both.''
Now, according to an August 31st, 1998 news article in the
Ventura County Star about my case, Nancy Nayak, who is the
Assistant Director of the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children, quoted the following, and I quote. ``In
1993, case workers estimated about 10,000 children were
abducted in the United States and taken abroad in parental
abductions. While the exact numbers cannot be determined today,
experts acknowledge that it is significantly higher. Also since
1993, approximately 10 arrest warrants have been filed for
these parents, and only one has been successfully prosecuted.''
And we heard a number of 26 today, so the number might be
altered a little bit, but it is still just a mere handful, less
than 1 percent.
Now, I visited Washington, D.C. In June of this year and I
talked to several Members of the Senate and Congress. I have
both written and called on the phone and faxed and everything
that we have to do as parents to get a hold of you lawmakers. I
have been incredibly pleased with the response that I have been
getting.
I was told that we were a Nation of laws. I was also
informed that laws are created more as a deterrent to crime
rather than a punishment for crime. It was also explained to me
that the stricter a law is enforced, the higher percentage of
compliance is achieved. So, if strict enforcement of laws are a
deterrent to crime, then what type of message is our Justice
Department giving the American people by prosecuting only 1
one-hundredth of 1 percent of those who violate the
International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993? How
effective of a deterrent to the crime of international parental
kidnapping is the issuance of a warrant for less than 1 percent
of those who violate the International Parental Kidnapping
Crime Act of 1993?
Is it any wonder that the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children report that international child abduction
out of the United States has tripled since 1986? While some are
quick to point that the rise in international marriages in the
United States have fueled this dramatic increase, I believe
that some, if not most, of this increase can be directly
attributed to the inexcusable disregard for enforcement of the
International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993 by our own
Justice Department.
In my case, after a long emotional and financial strain, I
was able to join the ranks of that less than 1 percent of the
cases that resulted in a parental abduction warrant. This was
only achieved after a 6-month full background check by the FBI
into my own personal affairs, having to fly my present family
out from California to Texas to be interviewed by the FBI, and
drumming up support through the lawmakers in Congress and local
media and thousands of man-hours and at least a hundred
letters. I believe it was my persistence that persevered in
obtaining this warrant and not the willingness of my U.S.
attorney to cooperate.
My son has been abducted into an underground organization
in Sweden. I have won the Hague cases in Sweden and have full
custody in both the United States and Sweden. The Swedish
Government has uncovered conclusive proof that my son was
registered in Sweden under a fraudulent birth certificate and a
fraudulent United States passport that was obtained as a result
of this fraudulent birth certificate. Both the Swedish
Government and myself have provided proof beyond a shadow of a
doubt of this action. I have requested that my U.S. attorney
issue a charge of passport fraud to not avail. Passport fraud,
by the way, is extraditable from almost any country. The
evidence is included within the handouts.
The Swedish prosecutor indicated that with an issuance of
passport fraud, he could expand the scope and search for my son
to include obtaining the phone and bank records of those known
to be illegally hiding him. Without the passport fraud warrant,
he will do nothing. He indicated to my attorney--I hear this a
lot--that if the United States is not willing to address this
issue, then why should Sweden? I think this makes a lot of
sense. It is a question we need to ask ourselves. Why should
other countries take child abduction seriously if we are not
willing to?
Now, if we can prosecute parents who abduct children on
more than one crime, then we can increase the chances of
extradition. If we can have their passports revoked, then we
can have the possibility of deportation which has worked in the
past. If we show these other countries that we are serious by
our actions and our requests, then they start getting serious
about the return of our children. The context very clearly
starts here with our own Justice Department. If we do not treat
the abduction of our children as a serious matter, then how can
we expect those other countries involved to fight for our
children's return?
Up until recently, the huddled masses of left-behind
parents and their abducted children in their patient suffering.
Every day these parents experience the agony that only a parent
can feel when their child has been stolen away from them. They
become bitter at the indifference they experience from the
Government officials that are sworn to uphold the laws of their
country. They have been kept at bay by hundreds, perhaps
thousands of U.S. Attorneys who refuse to issue international
parental abduction warrants. How much longer will the U.S.
Justice Department remain deaf to futile cries of these left-
behind parents and their abducted children?
The tide is changing left-behind parents of abducted
children are standing up and starting to be heard, thanks to
lawmakers such as you who are listening. We are crawling out of
our isolated existence and realizing that we are no longer
alone. We are now networking together and finding we share a
common injustice at the hands of our own Justice Department. It
is evident that it is the will of the American people to do
something drastic about this growing problem, and I am happy to
say that I understand that you are listening.
The miracle that we can create here today is for the
Justice Department to start taking this crime seriously and to
support the wishes of the American people and this Congress by
strictly enforcing the International Parental Kidnapping Act of
1993 and to start cooperating with parents.
Ms. Reno has the unique honor of being part of the growing
tide of change and becoming a part of the solution to this
problem. She has before her an opportunity to send out a clear
message that the United States is not going to stand for the
abduction of their children. Period.
In a recent July 30th, 1998 article in the Los Angeles
Daily Journal, featuring my case, Nancy Nayak from the National
Center for Missing and Exploited children quoted that ``The
Hague process is very lengthy and expensive and at best it can
take 6 months to a year,'' not 6 weeks as was quoted to me in
the publication that I received from the OCI. ``Even with the
Hague Treaty, the State Department reports there is only a 30
percent chance of getting your child back.'' Most of that 30
percent are made up of voluntary returns. In some countries
such as Sweden, Germany, and Austria, the percentage rates are
far worse.
I can sit here and complain about the Swedish Government
who granted the abductor of my son secrecy protection, which is
the equivalent of the witness protection program here in the
United States, because she presented the Swedish authorities
with false documentation and false claims that her life was in
danger. I can complain about the lack of police effort in
Sweden to find my son when in fact he was attending a local
public school three blocks from the police station under his
correct name and Swedish ID number. I can even complain about
the releasing of police investigation files to the abductor's
attorney detailing the scope and the methodology of their
search for her. I can complain that the Swedish Government
financially assists the abductor, who is an American citizen,
with legal aid and welfare, but yet claims to not know where
she is. But today is not the forum to complain only about
Sweden. I have directly confronted the Swedish Government with
these issues and will continue to do so.
We are here today with many other left-behind parents
questioning the lack of compliance of our Hague Convention by
other countries, as we should, but it is equally disturbing
that our own State Department Office of Children's Issues is
sending a clear message out to all the Central Authorities
involved that we are not adequately concerned for our children.
This is shown by the lack of returned correspondence, by their
constant turning over of personnel, their ridiculously vague
and soft treatment of violations by other Central Authorities,
their inherent lack of knowledge and training regarding foreign
laws, and their overall lack of concern for the parents they
are supposed to support. If I can use my terribly mismanaged
case as a barometer as to how the OCI is doing, then I cannot
begin to imagine the lack of support that other parents with
softer voices are receiving from the OCI.
As I understand it, new counselors have little formal
training in their new posts and are taking on an incredible
workload. My counselor had 3 days of on-the-job training before
taking the post over. After writing to Ms. Ryan, who is here
with us today, the Assistant Director of Consular Affairs,
about these concerns, she indicated that a counselor handles
between 140 and 150 cases. I know these parents here could join
me in knowing that handling one case is almost too much. How
could anyone handle that many cases? It is impossible. It is an
impossible workload even for an experienced counselor who has
been in their post for a couple of years. But to turn that
level of workload over to an inexperienced person with no
formal training is tragic because it concerns the welfare of
missing and abducted children, and each mistake that they make,
each lack of quick action, each unanswered correspondence
directly relates to a child's life. The Department is left to
relearn the lessons that they have already learned. The price
paid for those lessons were the souls and the loss of childhood
that countless numbers of past abducted children have already
paid.
Now are we to rob countless others again because we simply
have an inefficient system of inadequate training that clearly
does not work? It is perfectly clear to me that we have a very
serious problem here, and it is our children who will once
again pay the price. Please name another area within the State
Department that handles a commodity that is more precious than
our children.
As a world leader, other nations look to us for that
leadership and to deliver an example in which to follow. It is
any wonder that we have such a problem with Hague Convention
compliance abroad? If we are sending out a message that we are
soft on the international parental abduction of our own
children, then how can we possibly expect other countries to
hold the higher standard that is going to be necessary to
increase returns above 30 percent? Every child who is not
returned is subject to a flagrant violation of their human
rights as American citizens. 7 out of every 10 children
abducted out of this country through the Hague Convention will
never again see American soil.
I have come up with a couple of solutions as I have seen
it. I am not a lawmaker. I am not a lawyer, but it just some
things, after 2 and a half years, that make some common sense
to me.
First of all, we need strict enforcement by the Justice
Department of the International Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993. 1
one-hundredth of 1 percent prosecution rate is inexcusable, and
it sends a message out to every parent who is thinking about
abducting their child that no one is going to prosecute them.
It makes international child abduction a viable option for
every parent who is going through a divorce, and it needs to
stop.
We need to educate our U.S. Attorneys about parental
abduction and to instruct them to take an aggressive stance in
prosecuting these cases.
We need a person right here in Washington, D.C. At the
Justice Department's Office of International Affairs who has
the sole job to be in charge of international parental
kidnapping. If we are having 1,200 kids leaving a year out of
this country--or more--1,200 cases, then I would think that
would warrant having an individual in charge of that. They
would provide a consistency that we do not have now for left-
behind parents to get a universal answer and a solution to
their problems and a forum for U.S. Attorneys to ask the needed
questions that they need to know.
We need to have every international abduction case
broadcasted worldwide. In a bold and heroic effort by the
International Broadcasting Bureau of the U.S. Information
Agency, a program is now underway to broadcast our search for
these fugitives who abduct our children. These broadcasts
represent a two-front war against international abductions and
illustrates one attempt of direct action by the U.S. Government
to solve this problem. I am happy to say that I am seeing a
branch of the U.S. Government that is taking action, and I
applaud them.
This first front offers a very real chance to provide the
international public with the information needed to effect the
successful returns of these abducted children, but the second
front represents a much larger stage for a much larger picture.
These broadcasts will serve as a forum for the United States to
deliver how serious they intend to deal with international
abduction of their children.
Mr. Charles Goolsby and the International Broadcasting
Bureau of the U.S. Information Agency is to be commended for
their valiant effort toward assisting in the return of these
abducted children and should stand as an example of what real
change looks like for all Justice Department officials
everywhere.
The Chairman. Mr. Marinkovich, we must ask you to conclude
in the next couple of minutes, if you will.
Mr. Marinkovich. I have got about 45 seconds left.
The Chairman. That will be fine.
Mr. Marinkovich. I agree with Tom Johnson that we need to
move the Office of Children's Issues from the State Department
to the Civil Branch of the Justice Department or to a private
organization such as the National Center for missing and
Exploited Children who are pioneers in this field. If that is
not possible, then we need to do what we need to do to at least
double the number of counselors handling existing cases. 140 to
150 cases per counselor is unmanageable, and it is our children
that suffer.
We need to have studies into individual compliance records
of each country which we deal with. We absolutely should not
pass any further treaties with countries who are not currently
in compliance with the Hague Convention because if they are not
supporting our end of the treaties at this point, what makes us
think that they are going to comply with mutual legal
assistance treaties?
We should impose some further duty on imports from
countries that put money into a fund to help these searching
parents who are taxed hundreds of thousands of dollars looking
for their children in relationship to how flagrantly the
countries violate the Hague Convention.
In closing, again I want to acknowledge that I am not a
lawyer, that I am not an attorney, that I am not a lawmaker. I
guess by right I was invited here because I am the father of
Michael and Gabriel and a man that has been involved in a 2\1/
2\ year struggle to get them back. I pray that we can create
the miracle that I discussed in the beginning of this testimony
here today by starting the ball rolling and by all of us
changing the way in which we think about international parental
abduction and to send a very strong and serious message out as
the world leaders that we are not going to stand for it
anymore. Even if we put an extradition request out there and it
will not be honored, the context of us putting it out creates
action.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marinkovich follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Marinkovich
I wish to thank the Committee for the honor of speaking about
America's most precious resource, our children.
My 6-year-old son Gabriel was lost to an act of International
Parental Abduction on August 19, 1996. Over the last 773 days I have
been engaged in a battle on several fronts for his safe return. As both
a father and as an executive director and co-founder of the
International Child Rescue League, I find it important to hold the
proper context in both my case and interacting with others. Our mission
statement is as follows:
By holding the sacred bond of parent and child in its highest
regard, we stand for the right of all children to receive the
love of both their parents. We have faith that all parents
really want to do what is best for their children, but realize
that sometimes decisions are made out of anger rather than
love. It is our firm belief, that through individual case
support of missing and abducted children and by enrolling the
people of every nation in this vision, that a miracle is indeed
possible. We work toward the day when children everywhere will
be blessed with a world in which parental kidnapping is no
longer a threat to their growth, development, and stability.
I am here today in support of that miracle. One dictionary defines
a miracle as ``an event believed to be an act of God or of a
supernatural power.'' I contend that a miracle is a shift in one's
perception or their thinking. If we can start to change the way we all
think about International Child Abduction then we can indeed create a
miracle here today.
justice department
Lets first look at the actual act of parental abduction itself and
how it relates to children. The National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children created a federally funded publication to educate
and advise law enforcement officials in their investigation of parental
abduction cases called Missing and Abducted Children: Law Enforcement
Guide to Case Investigation and Management. It advises law enforcement
officers as follows:
The emotional scarring caused by these events requires that
officers recognize family abduction, not as a harmless offense
where two parents are arguing over who ``loves the child
more,'' but instead as an insidious form of child abuse.
In 1993, the American people and this Congress spoke their will and
passed into law the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of
1993. It states, and I quote,
Whoever removes a child from the United States or retains a
child outside the United States with intent to obstruct the
lawful exercise of parental rights shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more that 3 years, or both.
According to a August 31, 1998 newspaper article in the Ventura
County Star about my case, Nancy Nayak who is the Assistant Director of
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, quoted the
following:
In 1993, case workers estimated about 10,000 children were
abducted in the United States and taken abroad in parental
abductions. While the exact numbers can not be determined
today, experts acknowledge that it is significantly higher.
Also since 1993, only 10 arrest warrants have been filed for
these parents, and only one has been successfully prosecuted.
I visited Washington DC in June of this year and talked to several
members of the Senate and Congress. I was told that we are a nation of
laws. I also was informed that laws are created more as a deterrent to
crime rather than a punishment for crime. It was also explained to me
that the stricter a law is enforced, the higher percentage of
compliance is achieved. So if strict enforcement of laws are a
deterrent to crime, then what type of message is our Justice Department
giving the American people by prosecuting only 1/100th of 1 percent of
those who violate the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of
1993? How effective of a deterrent to the crime of International
Parental Kidnapping is the issuance of a warrant for 1/10th of 1
percent of those who violate the International Parental Kidnapping
Crime Act of 1993?
Is it any wonder that the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children report that International Child Abduction out of the United
States has tripled since 1986? While some are quick to point that the
rise in international marriages in the United States have fueled this
dramatic increase, I believe that some, if not most, of this increase
can be directly attributed to the inexcusable disregard for enforcement
of the International Parental Kidnapping Act of 1993 by our Justice
Department.
In my case after a long emotional and financial drain, I was able
to join the ranks of the 1/10th of 1 percent of the cases that result
in a warrant. This was only achieved after a 6 month full background
check into my affairs, having to fly my present family out from
California to Texas for an FBI interview, drumming up support from my
Congressman and local media and thousands of man hours and at least one
hundred letters. I believe it was my persistence that persevered and
not the willingness of my U.S. Attorney to cooperate.
My son has been abducted into an underground organization in
Sweden. I have won my Hague cases in Sweden and have full custody in
both the United States and Sweden. The Swedish Government has uncovered
conclusive proof that my son was registered in Sweden under a
fraudulent birth certificate and a fraudulent United States Passport
that was obtained with this fraudulent birth certificate. Both the
Swedish Government and myself have provided proof beyond a shadow of a
doubt of this action. I have requested that the U. S. Attorney issue a
charge of Passport Fraud to no avail. The evidence is included within
the handouts of the written account of my testimony.
The Swedish prosecutor indicated that with an issuance of passport
fraud he could expand the search for my son to include obtaining the
phone and bank records of those known to be illegally hiding my son.
Without the Passport Fraud warrant he will do nothing. He indicated to
my attorney, that if the United States is not willing to address this
issue then why should the Swedes. His request makes sense. Why should
other countries take child abduction seriously if we are not willing
to?
If we can prosecute parents who abduct on more than one crime, then
we can increase the chances of extradition. If we can have their
passports revoked, then we have the possibility of deportation which
has worked in the past. If we show these other countries that we are
serious by our actions and requests, then they start getting serious
about the return of our children. The context very clearly starts here
with our own Justice Department. If we don't treat the abduction of our
children as a serious matter, than how can we expect those other
countries involved to fight for our children's return.
Up until recently, the huddled masses of left behind parents and
their abducted children have been isolated in their patient sufferance.
Every day these parents experience the agony only a parent can feel
when their child has been stolen away. They become bitter at the
indifference they experience from the government officials sworn to
uphold the laws of their country. They have been kept at bay by
hundreds, perhaps thousands, of U.S. Attorneys who refuse to issue
International Parental Abduction Warrants. How much longer will the
United States Judicial System remain deaf to the futile cries of these
left behind parents and their abducted children?
The tide is changing. Left behind parents of abducted children are
standing up and starting to be heard. We are crawling out of our
isolated existence and realizing that we are not alone. We are now
networking together and finding we share a common injustice at the
hands of our own Justice Department. It is evident that it is the will
of the American people to do something drastic about this growing
problem.
The miracle we can create today, is for the Justice Department to
start taking this crime seriously and to support the wishes of the
American people and this Congress by strictly enforcing the
International Parental Act of 1993 and start cooperating with parents.
Ms. Reno as the Attorney General, you have the unique honor of
being part of the growing tide of change and becoming a part of the
solution. You have before you, an opportunity to send out a clear
message that the United States is not going to stand for the abduction
of children, period.
state department
In a recent July 30, 1998 article in the Los Angeles Daily Journal
(a well recognized legal newspaper) featuring my case, Nancy Nayak from
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children quoted that,
``The Hague process is very lengthy and expensive and at best it can
take from 6 months to a year'' (not six weeks as quoted by the
publication I received from the OCI). She further states, ``Even with
the Hague Treaty, the State Department reports there is only a 30
percent chance of getting your child back.'' Most of that 30 percent
are made up of voluntary returns. In some countries, such as Sweden,
Germany, and Austria, the return rate is even worse. I was never
informed that my chances of getting my son back via the Hague
Convention are less than 30 percent. Is that level of return acceptable
to the United States?
I can sit here and complain about the Swedish Government who
granted the abductor of my son secrecy protection (the equivalent to
our witness protection program) because she presented the Swedish
authorities with false documentation and false claims that her life was
in danger. I can complain about the lack of police effort in Sweden to
find my son, when in fact he was attending a local public school three
blocks from the police station under his correct name and Swedish ID
number. I can complain about the releasing of police investigation
files to the abductor's attorney detailing the scope and methodology of
their search for her. I can complain that the Swedish Government
financially assists the abductor, who is an American citizen, with
legal aid and welfare but yet claims they do not know her location.
This is not the forum to complain about Sweden. I have directly
confronted the Swedish Government with these issues and will continue
to do so. Already, some changes are taking place.
We are here today with many left behind parents questioning the
lack of compliance of the Hague Convention by other countries, as we
should, but it is equally disturbing that our own State Department
Office of Children's Issues is sending a clear message out to all the
Central Authorities involved that we are not concerned about our
children. This is shown by their lack of return correspondence, their
constant turning over of personal, their ridiculously vague and soft
treatment of violations by other Central Authorities, their inherent
lack of knowledge and training regarding foreign laws, and their
overall lack of concern for the parents they are supposed to support.
If I use my terribly mismanaged case as a barometer as to how the OCI
is doing, then I can't begin to imagine the lack of support other
parents with softer voices are receiving from the OCI.
As I understand it, new consulars have little formal training in
their new post and are taking on an incredible work load. My consular
had three days of on the job training before taking the post over.
After writing to Mary A. Ryan, the Assistant Director of Consular
Affairs about these concerns, she indicated that a consular handles
between 140 to 150 cases. This is an impossible workload even for an
experienced consular who has been in that post for two years. To turn
over that level of workload to an inexperienced person with no formal
training is tragic because it concerns the welfare of missing and
abducted children and each mistake, each lack of quick action, each
unanswered correspondence directly affects a child's life. The
Department is left to relearn the lessons already learned. The price
paid for those lessons were the souls and the loss of childhood that
the countless numbers of past abducted children have already paid. Now
are we to rob countless others again because we simply have an
inefficient system of inadequate training that clearly doesn't work? It
is perfectly clear to me that we have a very serious problem and it is
our children who will once again pay the price. Please name another
area within the State Department that handles a commodity more precious
than our children.
Other nations look to us for world leadership and to deliver an
example in which to follow. It is any wonder that we have such a
problem with Hague compliance abroad? If we are sending out a message
that we are soft on the international parental abduction of our
children, than how can we expect other countries to hold the higher
standard necessary to increase returns above 30 percent? Every child
who is not returned is subject to a flagrant violation of their human
rights. Remember 7 out of 10 children will never see American soil
again.
Our miracle here is for the United States to stand as a world
leader with an aggressive context that we are not going to stand for
the abduction of our children. This can be put forth by every State
Department official in every letter and phone call. We must change the
way in which we lead the world for the benefit of our children.
solutions
(1) We need strict enforcement by the Justice Department of the
International Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993.
(2) We need to educate our U. S. Attorneys about parental abduction
and instruct them to take an aggressive stance in prosecuting these
cases.
(3) We need a person in Washington D.C. at the Justice Department's
Office of International Affairs who is only in charge of International
Parental Kidnapping. They would provide a consistency so that left
behind parents can get a universal answer and solution to their
problems and strict enforcement can be assured.
(4) We need to have every international abduction case broadcasted
worldwide. In a bold and heroic effort by the International
Broadcasting Bureau of the United States Informational Agency, a
program is now under way to broadcast our search for these fugitives
who have abducted our children. These broadcasts represent a two front
war against international abductions and illustrates one attempt of
direct action by the United States Government to solve this problem.
The first front offers a very real chance to provide the international
public with the information needed to affect the successful returns of
these abducted children but the second front sets the stage for a much
larger picture. These broadcasts will serve as a forum for the United
States to deliver how serious they deal with the international
abduction of their children. Mr. Charles Goolsby and the International
Broadcasting Bureau of the United States Informational Agency is to be
commended for their valiant effort towards assisting in the return of
these abducted children and should stand as an example for all Justice
Department officials everywhere.
(5) We need to move the Office of Children's Issues from the State
Department to the Civil Branch of the Justice Department or to a
private organization such as the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children. If that is not possible, we need to at least double
the number of consulars handling these cases.
(6) We need to have studies into the individual compliance records
of each of the countries in which we deal with. We absolutely should
not pass further treaties with countries who are not currently in
compliance with the Hague Convention.
(7) We should impose further duty on imports from countries and put
that money in a fund to help searching parents in those countries in
direct relation to the amount of non-compliance they are exhibiting.
The Chairman. Very good. Thank you, sir.
Now what I hope is good news. I have been interested in
this matter for a long time. Senator Biden just leaned over to
me and said we have got to get the State Department off the
dime.
Now, you can lay the blame either way, but the blame should
exist in the first place.
Let me say in defense of a lady who does not belong to the
same party that I do, but the Attorney General has mentioned
this thing to me voluntarily at functions which she and I have
attended. One of them was a state dinner. I know it is on her
mind, and I know she wants to do something. This Government is
so big, unless people make themselves heard, as you have,
nothing much happens. But something is going to happen and I
think Joe Biden feels the same way about it.
Senator Biden. Mr. Chairman, all four cases are different.
All four cases are tragic. All four cases make any parent
think, oh, my God, what would I do?
I would like to say I admire your restraint. I mean that
sincerely. I admire your restraint.
The Chairman. Amen.
Senator Biden. I am not certain that I would possess that
same restraint. I hope I would but I do not know what I would
do.
The second point I would like to make is, since the cases
are different, some of the action we can take legislatively and
by attempting to change interpretations of treaties would help
some of you, would not help others of you. There is not a
single legislative solution that would solve all four of your
problems, and you represent all the same end result but four
different circumstances.
The country in question has overruled you in the end. Well,
they have. The most recent ruling in Sweden--I mean in--excuse
me.
Mr. Sylvester. In Austria.
Senator Biden.--in Austria, the Supreme Court reversed
itself on the grounds that she is now settled. Right?
Mr. Sylvester. Well, in reality, if I can clarify, the
Supreme Court--there is, was, and will always remain a valid
and final order under the Hague Convention Treaty to return
Carina to the United States. The distinction is on the second
round, when the Supreme Court received the review about a year
later, what they have decided is to not enforce their valid and
final order for return. Perhaps a subtle difference, but I
think a distinction. They did not reverse themselves.
Senator Biden. The bottom line is under the treaty they are
allowed to conclude the child has become settled, so you are at
a disadvantage legally compared to where you were legally
before you were at substantive disadvantage from the day this
began.
The only point I am trying to make is not any one of you
are better or worse positioned in terms of what you are
entitled to as a matter of God given right. What I am
suggesting is one solution would not solve all your problems.
Case in point. Yours, sir, seems to me to be an easy one
for us. I am not as gentlemanly, and I mean this sincerely, and
I am not as subtle as the chairman. I think the chairman and I
should tell the Secretary of State and the Attorney General
very simply, if the facts as you stated them to us are true and
that is that the State Department--this passport fraud has
occurred, then I am prepared to say to the Secretary of State
personally and to the Attorney General personally, if the
chairman is willing to do this, if you do not issue that
forthwith, immediately, the next 48 hours, you are going to
play hell with me on every single thing you want, everything
you want. I imagine we can get their attention. That is a
relatively easy thing for us to do.
Now, it is much more difficult for us to solve the other
problems that are here. It does not mean they are not able to
be solved. What I am suggesting to you is that you have
raised--and I particularly appreciate, Mr. Johnson, your
specific recommendations as to how to better facilitate the
application of American law in a fair implementation of the
Hague Treaty. All of you have made specific recommendations.
I know we are going to have to go vote in just a second, so
I will not take any more of the chairman's time except to say
this. Where there is a specific, explicit thing we can do, like
that old joke about the way you get the donkey's attention is a
2 by 4 across the head, where that works, I am willing to apply
the 2 by 4. It seems to me, subject to my independently
verifying what you have told us, that a 2 by 4 may work in your
case. It is going to take a little bit more in the other three
cases.
But I am prepared to work with the chairman and with the
Senator from Ohio to figure out how we make the Government--we
provide the agencies in question with the manpower and
resources so they cannot say that it was a lack of resources,
they cannot say it was a lack of support that they were getting
for them to do their job. If that includes moving from one
Department to another, I am willing to entertain that as well.
I am sorry to take so much time, Mr. Chairman. I will cease
and desist.
The Chairman. Is this not the good news that you wanted?
Lady Meyer. Can I make one comment?
The Chairman. You may have the last word because you talked
briefly.
Lady Meyer. Thank you.
I completely agree with you. Each of our individual cases
are different, but we have one point in common, that in all our
cases our children were not returned to our countries for
different reasons. But since then, because we are dealing with
particular countries that do not have enforcement of access
rights, none of us have been able to see our children, and I
think that is a very, very unfortunate issue, not only the non
return of the children, but access.
Senator Biden. I agree with you.
Lady Meyer. I can list which countries. In France, for
instance, if there is no access, the parent is immediately
arrested, put in jail. In Britain, access is also enforceable.
In Germany, Austria, I think Sweden and Denmark, it is not, and
that is another huge issue for us.
Senator Biden. It is and I appreciate it. I did not mean to
belittle the other----
Lady Meyer. No, no. Not at all.
The Chairman. Very well. I take note of the fact that we
have two Michaels here at the dais.
I know you will not hesitate to respond to questions filed
in writing by Senators who were unable to be here but who have
an interest in this. Now, make haste to respond to those so
that we may make the record as complete as possible.
I know you appreciate what Senator Biden has said. That is
the way he operates, and I am glad to be working with Joe
Biden.
Thank you very much, and if there be no further business to
come before the committee, we stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the committee was adjourned,
subject to the call of the Chair.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Responses to Additional Questions Submitted for the Record by the
Committee
United States Department of State,
Washington, D. C.,
February 8, 1999.
Hon. Paul Coverdell,
United States Senate.
Dear Senator Coverdell: Following the October 1, 1998, hearing on
international parental child abduction at which the Attorney General
testified, additional questions were submitted for our response. We
apologize for the long delay in this response. However, please be
assured that we have been in continuous contact with Mr. Goldstein and
have also pressed the Swiss Central Authority for a rapid resolution of
the process for enforcement of the court order to return Kelly to her
father.
If we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate
to contact us.
Sincerely,
Barbara Larkin,
Assistant Secretary,
Legislative Affairs.
Enclosure:
As stated.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Coverdell
hague convention case of kelly goldstein
Question. What is the status of this case and what steps are being
taken by the USG (United States Government) to assist Mr. Goldstein in
enforcing the court orders pertaining to his daughter?
Answer. Mr. Goldstein's daughter Kelly was abducted by her mother
on or about September 4, 1996. Mr. Goldstein filed for return of Kelly
pursuant to the Hague Convention on October 1, 1996. In November, 1996
an initial Swiss court decision refused to return Kelly based on
Article 13 of the Hague Convention. Article 13 stipulates that the
judicial authorities of a given state may refuse to order the return of
a child ``if there is grave risk that his or her return would expose
the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the
child in an intolerable situation.'' Mr. Goldstein successfully
appealed this decision and on March 6, 1997 his daughter was ordered
returned to the U.S. Kelly's mother appealed this decision but the
Appeals court turned her down on April 25, 1998. Enforcement of the
court order was subsequently suspended when the mother appealed to the
Swiss Federal Court--the highest court in Switzerland. This court
rejected appeal in September and decided in favor of Mr. Goldstein.
Mr. Goldstein's case was then sent to the appropriate cantonal
court for execution of the return order. The Swiss Central Authority,
(SCA) responding to inquiries by the U.S. Central Authority, has said
the case is being prolonged by the need to make the best arrangements
for the return of the child. Further confusing the issue are
accusations of abuse against Mr.Goldstein, which he has been trying to
get investigated in order to clear his name and be able to go to
Switzerland to get Kelly. The Swiss Central Authority has said that
such accusations can play a role in the decision of the cantonal
authorities regarding enforcement of return.
The most recent development is the apparent withdrawal of the
presiding cantonal judge in the case because, as related by Mr.
Goldstein, he had a conflict of interest.
Question. What additional steps could the USG undertake to assist
in this case, if any? If other measures are available, why have they
not been taken to date?
Answer. The United States Central Authority for the Hague (the
Office of Children's Issues in the Department of State) has been in
regular contact with the Central Authority in Switzerland. We have
encouraged a rapid resolution of the case and have requested
explanations for the continuing delays and appeals. In Switzerland, as
in other European countries, the national and local laws permit the
kind of dilatory appeals process in civil matters that we have seen in
Mr. Goldstein's case. The only other action that could be taken in the
short term by the U.S. Government would be a diplomatic note. We have
not yet sent such a note because it is likely the Swiss Government
would answer that the case was still subject to an ongoing legal
process. We will, however, watch closely how the new judge handles the
enforcement process, and consider further whether a diplomatic note
might yet be an effective way to proceed.
Question. Is the apparent lack of cooperation by Swiss authorities
in this case typical? Is Switzerland generally cooperative in these
cases and in compliance with the Hague Convention?
Answer. There is no typical case since circumstances vary. As a
private civil legal matter between the parents, the progress of each
Hague case depends on the individuals involved and the circumstances of
the case, including complex factors such as the resources of the
private parties involved, claims by either parent, the operation of the
legal system in the country where the child is located, the age of the
children, the passage of time, etc.
The Swiss Central Authority has monitored and facilitated the
process in this case, and has been responsive to our concerns, but it
does not have authority to determine the actions of the judiciary. The
Appeals court overturned the trial court's denial of return. The Swiss
Supreme Court has upheld the return of the child to the United States.
Statistically, since July 1, 1988, when the Convention became effective
between the United States and Switzerland, 39 abduction cases have been
closed; 20 of these were closed by agreements or court decisions to
allow either return of or access to the child. The remaining 9 cases
were closed for reasons other than return of or access to the child.
Currently, 6 cases are pending: 4 involving applications for access and
2 seeking return, including that of Kelly Goldstein.
__________
Abduction of Carina Maria Sylvester by Monika Rossmann (AKA Monika
Sylvester) and the Government of Austria
Chronology
10/30/95 Carina Sylvester is taken by her
mother from the United States to
Austria.
10/31/95 Thomas Sylvester files Application
for return of the child with U.S.
State Department under the Hague
Convention Treaty on the Civil
Aspects of International Child
Abduction (``the Hague Convention
Treaty'') to which both the United
States and Austria are
signatories. In separate
litigation, Thomas Sylvester files
a Complaint for Divorce in the
Oakland County Michigan Circuit
Court and an Ex Parte Order for
joint custody is entered.
11/08/95 Austrian Central Authority confirms
receipt of the Hague Application.
11/21/95 Ex Parte Interim Order for Custody
of Carina Sylvester is amended.
Thomas Sylvester granted temporary
physical custody of Carina
Sylvester and Monika Sylvester
supervised visitation in Michigan.
1215/95 Application for Assistance makes
its way through the Austrian
Ministry of Justice to the court
of the first instance in Graz,
Austria where hearings where
conducted by Judge Katter. Monika
Sylvester raises her defenses to
return the child under the terms
of the Hague Convention Treaty.
12/18/95 Thomas Sylvester travels to Austria
to participate in the legal
proceedings.
12/20/95 Thomas Sylvester participates in
proceedings with District Court of
Graz. District Court of Graz Judge
Christine Katter enters court
order for Carina to be returned to
the United States pursuant to the
Hague Convention. Monika Sylvester
did not comply with the Order of
the Austrian Court.
12/22/95 Graz court specifically orders
supervised visitation for Thomas
Sylvester to see Carina in Graz on
Christmas Eve, 1995 and on
December 27, 1995. In separate
litigation, Monika Sylvester is
served with documents on Michigan
court proceedings in accordance
with Michigan law.
12/24/95 Thomas Sylvester arrives at Family
Institute for Learning in Graz,
Austria in accordance with
supervised visitation scheduled by
Austrian court order. Monika
Sylvester does not comply with the
Austrian court Order and does not
bring Carina to the appointed
place for this visitation.
12/27/95 Thomas Sylvester arrives at Family
Institute for Learning in Graz,
Austria in accordance with
supervised visitation scheduled by
Austrian court order. Monika
Sylvester does not comply with the
Austrian court Order and does not
bring Carina to the appointed
place for this visitation.
12/28/95 Thomas Sylvester returns from
Austria to the U.S. without seeing
Carina.
01/19/96 The Austrian Court of Appeals
affirms the December 20, 1995 Graz
Court Order for the immediate
return of Carina to the United
States. This filing of the Appeal
however, initiated an automatic
stay of enforcement of the
December 20, 1995 order which
ultimately continued through May
7, 1996.
1/23/96 A Default is taken by Monika
Sylvester in the Michigan court
proceedings.
2/27/96 Austrian Supreme Court affirms the
lower court order for return of
Carina. However, the Order is not
official until it is
``delivered''. It was delivered to
the District Court of Graz on May
7, 1996. Once delivered, all stays
were lifted and the initial order
from the Graz Court dated December
20, 1995 became finally
enforceable.
3/7/96 Motion filed for Entry of Default
Judgment of Divorce in Michigan
court.
3/13/96 Appearance of Monika Sylvester in
Michigan court proceedings through
counsel and filing of a Motion to
Set Aside the Default.
3/14/967 United States Central Authority
forwards to Thomas Sylvester's
lawyer, Jan McMillan, a copy of
the Austrian court of first
instance order and a copy of the
decision of the Austrian appellate
court, upholding the lower court's
decision to order return of the
child pursuant to Hague
Convention.
4/5/96 Following extensive hearing in
Michigan Circuit Court, Order
entered denying Monika Sylvester's
Emergency Motion for Order
Preventing Removal of Minor Child
from Custody of Defendant Pending
Hearing and for Temporary Spousal
Support and Travel Expenses.
4/16/96 Order entered in Michigan Court
proceedings denying Monika
Sylvester's Motion to Set Aside
the Default. Default Judgment of
Divorce entered in Michigan court.
Thomas Sylvester granted sole
legal and physical custody of
Carina. Monika Sylvester granted
supervised visitation in Michigan.
No appeal taken.
5/1/96 Order to Seal Michigan Court Record
pursuant to MCR 8.105(D) entered.
5/06/96 Austrian Central Authority
acknowledges United States Central
Authority faxes of April 17 and
May 1 asking if the Austrian
Supreme Court had made a decision
and informs the United States
Central Authority that no decision
had yet been made.
5/07/96 Austrian lawyer informs Thomas
Sylvester the Austrian Supreme
Court order was delivered to the
Graz court and requests Thomas
Sylvester travel to Austria to
participate in a recovery attempt
orchestrated by Judge Katter.
5/08/96 Thomas Sylvester and Jan McMillan
travel from United States to
Austria.
5/09/96 Thomas Sylvester and Jan McMillan
meet with Dr. Stephan Moser in
Graz to discuss arrangements for
the child recovery as arranged by
the court.
5/10/96 Failed attempt at civil enforcement
of the Austrian court orders at
the home of Monika Sylvester's
parents, Werner and Gertraud
Rossmann in Austria.
5/15/96 Monika Sylvester submits a petition
to the District Court of Graz to
remove Judge Katter from the case.
5/16/96 United States Central Authority
asks Austrian Central Authority to
confirm that the Austrian Supreme
Court had made a decision on this
matter in favor of the applicant
and asks for assistance in
enforcing this order.
5/29/96 The United States of America V
Monika M. Sylvester, Criminal
Complaint No.96-80432 for
international parental kidnapping
under 18 USC 1204 issued in U.S.
District Court. Red and Yellow
Notices issued by Interpol.
5/30/96 United States Central Authority
forwards to lawyer Jan McMillan
the Austrian Central Authority fax
confirming that on February 27,
1996 the Austrian Supreme Court
had dismissed Monika Sylvester's
appeal and stating that ``the
decision of the district court of
Graz of December 20, 1995 has
become final''.
6/10/96 The supervisory court in Austria
dismisses Monika Sylvester's
petition for removal of Judge
Katter of the Graz court from the
case due to prejudice.
6/18/96 Austrian lawyer for Thomas
Sylvester, Dr. Stephan Moser,
files a second application for
civil enforcement of the December
20, 1995 court Order.
6/25/96 Court of the first instance in Graz
transfers jurisdiction to court of
the first instance in Obergralla
based on Monika Sylvester's
allegations that she resides in
Obergralla. Monika Sylvester is
actually hiding with the child.
6/26/96 United States Central Authority
asks the Austrian Central
Authority what steps are being
taken to enforce the December 20,
1995 court return order. Monika
Sylvester files a request that the
Austrian Ministry of Justice not
recognize the Michigan Judgment of
Divorce.
6/27/96 United States Central Authority
asks Embassy Vienna to attempt a
welfare and whereabouts visit with
the child. Austrian Central
Authority informs the United
States Central Authority ``it is
up to his attorney-at-law (Moser)
to take all further steps to
enforce the decision of the
District Court of Graz''.
6/29/96 Austrian Court of Appeals decides
in favor of Reopening the Hague
Convention case.
7/03/96 United States Central Authority
informs the Austrian Central
Authority that it was up to
Austrian authorities to enforce
Austrian court orders.
7/05/96 Embassy Vienna faxes Jan McMillan
report on consular investigator
visit to Graz to try to locate
Carina and to speak with the
police and others involved in this
case. Embassy also informs Jan
McMillan that United States
Ambassador had personally written
to the Governor of Styria,
Austria, to ask for her assistance
in returning Carina to the United
States.
7/10/96 Thomas Sylvester requests via
letter the assistance of President
Bill Clinton for the return of
Carina to the United States. In a
separate letter addressed to the
First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton,
same request is made for Canna.
7/12/96 United States Central Authority
writes to head of the Austrian
Central Authority to express U.S.
concern and frustration over the
difficulties encountered in
enforcing the December 20, 1995
order and asks what measures they
are taking to enforce their order.
7/17/96 Austrian Central Authority informs
United States Central Authority
that the mother and child moved
from Graz to Obergralla and that
therefore the district court of
Leibnitz would be the court of
competent jurisdiction.
7/26/96 Thomas Sylvester appeals District
Court of Graz decision of June 25,
1996 transferring the venue to
Obergralla.
Date unknown Monika Sylvester submits a petition
to Re-open Hague Convention case.
Date unknown Motion to Re-open Hague Convention
case denied by Judge Katter and
appealed to Austrian Court of
Appeals by Monika Sylvester.
8/21/96 United States Central Authority
again writes detailed letter to
Austrian Central Authority asking
that they assist in enforcing the
December 20, 1995 order. The
Austrian Central Authority
responds on August 28, 1996 that
it is the sole task of the court
to enforce its order.
9/03/96 Embassy Vienna reports results of a
medical examination of Carina done
by Dr. Dieter Schmidt. Carina
appears in good health.
9/08/96 Austrian Central Authority informs
United States Central Authority
(and United States Central
Authority informs Thomas
Sylvester) that on August 29 the
court of appeal in Graz overruled
the order of the district court to
transfer the case to the district
court of Leibnitz. The court of
appeals also set aside the parts
of the May 8 order regarding
enforcement measures for return of
the child. The appeals court also
allowed for further appeal to the
Austrian Supreme Court.
9/10/96 Embassy in Vienna sends letter to
Austrian Central Authority asking
that Carina be visited by social
worker; Austrian Central Authority
replies that local judge sees no
reason for such a visit and again
states that Austrian Central
Authority cannot interfere in
court proceedings
9/11/96 United States Central Authority
speaks with the Austrian Embassy
Officer about this case.
9/16/96 Decision of Graz Court to suspend
divorce proceedings until such
time as decision is made on the
recognition of the Michigan
Judgment of Divorce.
9/19/96 United States Central Authority
sends cable to Embassy Vienna
instructing them to demarche
Government of Austria to express
United States Government interest
in quick resolution of this case
and request enforcement of return
order.
9/23/96 United States Central Authority
contacts United States Interpol to
see if Austrian Interpol has
located mother and child. United
States Interpol says several
requests have been sent but no
reply from Austrian Interpol.
9/26/96 Decision of the Ministry of Justice
not to recognize the Michigan
Judgment of Divorce as valid and
enforceable in Austria.
10/10/96 Embassy Vienna reports that they
visited Government of Austria
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
Ministry of Justice (Austrian
Central Authority) to discuss
case. Both ministries say delay is
unfortunate but believe case is
being properly handled by the
independent judiciary, emphasizing
that the administrative branch
cannot instruct judicial branch.
Says delay is result of ``careful
and effective lawyering'' on both
sides.
10/15/96 Austrian Supreme Court enters
decision to reopen Hague
Convention case.
10/22/96 Attorney Jan McMillan sends letter
to United States Central Authority
asking for update on demarche to
Austrians. The United States
Central Authority calls Jan
McMillan to discuss demarche.
10/26/96 Jan McMillan faxes copy of Appeals
Court decision to reopen case.
10/30/96 Jan McMillan files Freedom of
Information Application request on
all records regarding the return
of any children to Austria from
the United States under the Hague
Convention since October 1995.
United States Central Authority
gives copy of request to Central
Authority/PRI
11/19/96 Jan McMillan sends letter to Adair
Dyer at the Hague Permanent Bureau
about case and asks for his
assistance in resolving matter.
Also calls United States Central
Authority director to discuss
case. Wants United States to
threaten not to return Austrian
children if Carina is not
returned. United States Central
Authority advises that threat is
ill-conceived and possibly
illegal.
11/26/96 Jan McMillan calls Adair Dyer about
case. Tries to contact Austrian
Central Authority Schutz but is
unable; sends him letter asking if
Ministry of Justice would
represent father if he no longer
retains Austrian lawyer.
12/3/96 United States Central Authority
sends lengthy query to Austrian
Central Authority about the
Supreme Court decision, the lack
of enforcement, the lack of
access, and rewarding the
abductor.
12/5/96 Austrian Central Authority Werner
Schutz replies to United States
Central Authority letter. Austrian
Central Authority says December
20, 1995 order is still ``valid
and final''. The court, he says,
will only address the question of
enforcement of the order, taking
into consideration the best
interests of the child. Reiterates
that Ministry of Justice can not
interfere in judicial process.
Says father has to petition the
court to get access to Carina
while case ``drags on''. Lastly,
says child is not in danger and
court will not arrange for social
worker to see child.
1/2/97 Austrian Supreme Administrative
Court denies Thomas Sylvester's
appeal of the Austrian Ministry of
Justice position not to recognize
the Michigan Judgment of Divorce.
United States Central Authority
forwards to Austrian Central
Authority letter from Jan McMillan
regarding reopening of the
enforcement issue, separation of
powers, access to child and
refusal to have child seen by
social workers.
1/10/97 Jan McMillan says Austrian attorney
petitioned court of visitation
rights of father in early December
1996.
1/21/97 Thomas Sylvester asks United States
Central Authority for information
on approach by United States
Delegation to March Hague meeting
regarding the case. United States
Central Authority informs Thomas
Sylvester that United States
Delegation will generally discuss
the enforcement of civil judgments
and Article 13(b) delays in
plenary session, and will have
side meeting with the Austrian
Central Authority Schutz to
discuss this case specifically.
United States Central Authority
asks the Austrian Central
Authority for update on pending
visitation request.
2/03/97 Thomas Sylvester and Jan McMillan
ask for follow-up to Austrian
Central Authority on Jan
McMillan's January 2 letter which
has not been answered.
2/12/97 Decision of the Graz Court on
remand directing the child
psychologist three weeks to
conclude his investigations.
4/2/97 Report and recommendation of Dr.
Kraft submitted to Graz Court.
4/22/97 Response to report of Dr. Kraft
filed by Thomas Sylvester.
4/29/97 Opinion and Order regarding
Visitation. Opinion and Order on
Remand granting Monika Sylvester's
petition not to enforce the Order
for Return under the Hague
Convention.
5/28/97 Order of the Austrian Court of
Appeals denying Thomas Sylvester's
appeal of the Order Not to Enforce
the Order for Return.
5/31/97 Thomas Sylvester travels to Austria
for visitation with Carina
Sylvester.
6/2/97 Thomas Sylvester exercises
supervised visitation with Carina
Sylvester for one hour at the
Family Institute for Family
Learning in Graz, Austria.
6/4/97 Thomas Sylvester exercises
supervised visitation with Carina
Sylvester for one hour at the
Family Institute for Family
Learning in Graz, Austria.
6/5/97 Thomas Sylvester meets with Swanee
Hunt, U.S. Ambassador to Austria
in her office at the U.S. Embassy
in Vienna. Ambassador Hunt hand-
delivers U.S. diplomatic note
prepared by the U.S. State
Department to the Austrian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
6/6/97 Thomas Sylvester exercises
supervised visitation with Carina
Sylvester for one hour at the
Family Institute for Family
Learning in Graz, Austria.
6/7/97 Thomas Sylvester returns from
Austria to the United States.
6/9/97 U.S. Department of State delivers
diplomatic note to the Austrian
Embassy in Washington, D.C.
9/9/97 Order of the Supreme Court of
Austria denying Thomas Sylvester's
appeal from the decision of the
Court of Appeals on the Reopening
of the Hague Case issue.
9/10/97 Order issued regarding Austrian
divorce case.
9/30/97 Austrian Central Authority informs
U.S. Department of State that the
Austrian Supreme Court decided on
September 9, 1997 not to accept
the extraordinary Appeal, and that
no enforcement measures will be
available to return the child to
the United States. The Austrian
Central Authority closes its file
on the original Hague Application.
12/9/97 Thomas Sylvester travels to Austria
for visitation with Carina
Sylvester. Thomas Sylvester and
Monika Sylvester meet with Dr.
Helga Baumann at the Institute for
Family Learning to discuss
upcoming visitation matters.
12/10/97 Thomas Sylvester exercises
supervised visitation with Carina
Sylvester for two hours at the
Family Institute for Family
Learning in Graz, Austria.
12/11/97 Thomas Sylvester exercises
supervised visitation with Carina
Sylvester for two hours at the
Family Institute for Family
Learning in Graz, Austria
12/12/97 Thomas Sylvester exercises
supervised visitation with Carina
Sylvester for two hours at the
Family Institute for Family
Learning in Graz, Austria.
12/15/97 Dr. Stephan Moser sends letter to
Dr. Brigitte Birnbaum, legal
counsel for Monika Sylvester,
outlining a plan for Thomas
Sylvester to see Carina four times
in 1998 (during the Easter
holiday, a week in June, time
during Carina's birthday in
September and the Christmas
holiday period).
12/22/97 Dr. Birnbaum sends a reply to Dr.
Moser letter stating that Monika
Sylvester wants Thomas Sylvester
to pay child support of OS10,000
($1,000/month).
12/24/97 Thomas Sylvester speaks with Carina
on the telephone for Christmas
1997.
12/29/97 District Court of Graz order awards
Monika Sylvester custody of
Carina. The court order does not
even address Thomas Sylvester's
rights at all.
1/13/98 Monika Sylvester notifies Thomas
Sylvester via fax of the court
order with regard to custody of
Carina. Monika Sylvester requests
Thomas Sylvester for a suggestion
on payment of child support.
1/14/98 Thomas Sylvester replies via fax to
Monika Sylvester regarding
visitation, mirror custody orders
in both Austria and the United
States, financial and other
support for Carina, Monika's
statements which are untrue and
need to be corrected for Carina's
sake, and agreement for future
action plans.
1/20/98 United States Central Authority
sends Jan McMillan the State
Department translation of the
Austrian custody order. United
States Central Authority points
Out that the court order does not
even address Thomas Sylvester's
rights at all, not even
visitation, and questions if this
is usual in Austria.
1/21/98 Monika Sylvester sends fax to
Thomas Sylvester emphasizing her
position that the plan for 1998
was only to be applied if Thomas
Sylvester accepted the Austrian
custody order and started child
support payments right away.
Monika states that visiting rights
are to be applied for at the
Austrian court. Monika Sylvester
states this will be the last
letter she sends to me directly.
1/22/98 Thomas Sylvester sends fax to Dr.
Stephan Moser requesting to
proceed with a formal petition to
Court for flirther visitation with
Carina.
1/27/98 Jan McMillan sends fax to Dr.
Stephan Moser requesting advise as
to how and when he recommends the
petition be brought to the court
for visitation.
2/2/98 Austrian Court of Appeals order
denies Thomas Sylvester's appeal
of the custody award to Monika
Sylvester.
2/4/98 Thomas Sylvester sends a fax to Dr.
Stephan Moser to provide thoughts
regarding the letter from Dr.
Birnbaum of December 22, 1997.
Highlights include holiday stay
for Carina in the United States, a
plan for 1998, child support
payments, and a proposal to
structure a workable legal
solution.
2/11/98 Jan McMillan sends fax to Dr.
Stephan Moser to discuss a
strategy for Thomas Sylvester's
formal request for visitation with
Carina this Easter.
2/16/98 Letter signed by Dr. Brigitte
Bimbaum in German stating that a
visitation for Thomas Sylvester
with Carina at Easter is not
possible. Furthermore, Dr.
Birnbaum requests Thomas Sylvester
to stay in the United States and
take money that would be spent in
travel and send it to Monika
Sylvester.
2/27/98 Austrian Court of Appeals denies
the appeal from Thomas Sylvester
to the District Court of Graz
decision on custody dated December
29, 1997.
2/25/98 Thomas Sylvester receives Dr.
Birnbaum letter dated February 16,
1998.
2/26/98 Thomas Sylvester submits 1998
requested visitation dates to Jan
McMillan. Thomas Sylvester and Jan
McMillan draft the Application for
Assistance under Article 21 of the
Hague Convention for Rights of
Access.
3/3/98 Thomas Sylvester signs and faxes
Application for Assistance
documents to Jan McMillan to
proceed with appropriate process
of formal submission of the Hague
Convention Application for
Assistance for Rights of Access.
3/4/98 Jan McMillan faxes signed documents
to United States Central Authority
on the Application for Assistance
under Article 21 the Hague
Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction. In
the Application, Thomas Sylvester
requests visitation and other
access to Carina under the Hague
Convention according to a schedule
which includes the Easter 1998
holiday and the last week of June,
1998. This request in no way is
meant to diminish Thomas
Sylvester's prior request for
Carina's return under the Hague
Convention, which although
ordered, has not as yet been
honored.
3/4/98 United States Central Authority
acknowledges receipt of the Hague
Application for access to Carina,
and forwards the application to
the Austrian Central Authority for
processing.
3/6/98 Austrian Central Authority requests
United States Central Authority to
provide German translations of the
application and the other
documents. Austrian Central
Authority states a new
authorization according to Article
28 of the Convention is needed
because this is a new application
under Article 21 of the
Convention. Before receiving the
complete application, the Austrian
Central Authority is unable to
send it to the competent court.
3/9/98 Jan McMillan sends the original
signed Application for Assistance
to the United States Central
Authority which was faxed on March
4, 1998.
3/11/98 United States Central Authority
sends the Austrian Central
Authority fax dated March 6, 1998
to Thomas Sylvester along with a
German access application, and
requests an Article 28
authorization be signed and
returned to the United States
Central Authority. Jan McMillan
sends a letter via fax to Dr.
Stephan Moser including the
appropriate Application for
Assistance under the Hague
Convention for access and letter
from Werner Schutz requesting that
the American Application written
in English be translated to
German. Jan McMillan requests Dr.
Moser complete the form in German
incorporating same information as
set forth on the English language
version. Time is of the essence
and correspondence is forwarded
accordingly.
3/12/98 United States Central Authority
replies to the Austrian Central
Authority March 6 fax and forwards
the Article 28 Authorization via
fax while the original follows by
mail. The United States Central
Authority also informs the
Austrian Central Authority that
the German translation of the
Hague Access Application will be
submitted directly to Austrian
Central Authority by Dr. Stephan
Moser, the applicant's attorney in
Austria. The United States Central
Authority requests the Austrian
Central Authority to advise what
the next steps will be once all
the necessary paperwork is
received.
Thomas Sylvester signs the Article
28 Authorization form to empower
the Central Authority of Austria
to act on Thomas Sylvester behalf
or to designate another
representative to act, according
to the Hague Convention on the
Civil Aspects of International
Child Abduction. Article 28
document is faxed to Jan McMillan
and original sent via express mail
for processing.
3/13/98 Original signed Article 28
Authorization from Thomas
Sylvester received by Jan McMillan
and forwarded to the United States
Central Authority.
3/17/98 Original signed Article 28
Authorization from Thomas
Sylvester sent by United States
Central Authority via mail to the
Austrian Central Authority.
3/20/98 Jan McMillan faxes correspondence
from United States Central
Authority dated March 12 to
Austrian Central Authority on to
Dr. Stephan Moser and states the
need to proceed with this matter
quickly so that Thomas Sylvester
may have the possibility of
visiting with Carina in April. Jan
McMillan also asks Dr. Moser to
speak with the Austrian Central
Authority concerning who is
responsible for initiating the
court action.
3/24/98 Dr. Stephan Moser sends a letter
with Jan McMillan's letter dated
March 4 to the Austrian Central
Authority for reply to process
application promptly.
3/27/98 Austrian Central Authority replies
to Dr. Moser by requesting
clarification regarding the dates
of the access and the manner in
which such access is requested,
specifically, the ``dignified and
normal unsupervised access''.
3/31/98 Austrian Supreme Court dismisses
appeal to enforce original return
order.
4/1/98 Jan McMillan sends fax to Dr. Moser
requesting that he prepare a
response to the Austrian Central
Authority and provides
explanations to help the Austrian
Central Authority understand the
application along with advice that
April 10 rapidly approaches and
the Hague Convention requires that
the Central Authority proceed with
all due speed on processing the
request.
4/2/98 Dr. Moser provides Austrian Central
Authority with clarification on
access.
4/3/98 Austrian Central Authority informs
the United States Central
Authority that the German version
of the application, signed by Dr.
Moser on March 24 has been
received on March 26 by the
Austrian Central Authority, and
the application along with the
additional documents are sent to
the President of the District
Court of Graz today.
4/6/98 United States Central Authority
sends the Austrian Central
Authority fax dated April 3 to Jan
McMillan.
4/7/98 Graz court enters statements
against access submitted by Monika
Sylvester.
4/9/98 Austrian Central Authority informs
the United States Central
Authority that the competent court
in Austria, the District Court of
Graz, has not yet been able to
decide the case as the whole file
had to be transmitted to the High
Court of Appeal in Vienna for
decision on an extra-ordinary
appeal, and stated that the court
tried to reach a friendly
settlement with the mother, yet it
has no been possible to get into
contact with the mother's lawyer.
Dr. Stephan Moser informs Jan
McMillan that Monika Sylvester's
attorney, Mrs. Birnbaum, has sent
no message in reply to the request
for access, and therefore it is
not possible to arrange for some
visitation on Easter weekend.
4/11/98 Jan McMillan sends letter to United
States Central Authority
expressing disappointment that
Thomas Sylvester was unable to
have visitation with Carina as
hoped over the Easter weekend, and
requests the United States Central
Authority forcefully demand that
the Austrian Central Authority
cooperation to handle this matter
in accordance with the terms of
the Hague Convention that call for
expeditious resolution of
applications.
4/15/98 Graz court enters statements
against access submitted by Monika
Sylvester.
4/16/98 United States Central Authority
sends fax to the Austrian Central
Authority to point out that the
current request for access is a
new, separate case that has
nothing to do with the ``whole
file'' that is with the High Court
in Vienna for the appeal on the
custody/divorce case; and requests
the access case be brought before
the Graz court immediately so that
the question of access to Carina
not be entirely controlled by the
mother and her attorney.
4/17/98 Robert Gasser in Austria submits
report identifying activity taken
in attempts to hand-deliver court
documents to Monika Sylvester. He
went to the house where Monika
Sylvester was reportedly living
and was told documents would not
be accepted ``because there might
be some bomb in the letter''.
4/22/98 Austrian Central Authority responds
to United States Central Authority
fax of April 16 on the handling of
the court file. Austrian Central
Authority states ``at the time
when the application under 21 of
the Convention has been received
by the district court the court
file was not present and the judge
acting in the absence of the
competent judge had no knowledge
at all of the case and in
particular of the content of the
court file. The judge's point of
view that he had not sufficient
information regarding the case to
decide immediately on the access-
right was justified and must be
respected in the light of the
independence of the judiciary.''
4/27/98 Dr. Stephan Moser faxes to Jan
McMillan a District Court of Graz
decision dated April 22 to reject
the Hague Application for Rights
of Access.
4/29/98 Austrian Central Authority sends
fax to the United States Central
Authority stating ``The Austrian
Central Authority wants to inform
that the District Court in Graz
has by its order of April 22, 1998
rejected Mr. Sylvester's
application according to Article
21 of the Hague Convention because
of procedural reasons. A copy is
attached. It is up to Mr.
Sylvester to instruct his attorney-
at-law to lodge an appeal.''
5/4/98 United States Central Authority
sends fax to Thomas Sylvester
which states ``as requested,
here's the fax I received from the
Austrian Central Authority last
week. I'll let you know as soon as
we have 'come up with a strategy
here.''
5/14/98 United States Central Authority
sends fax to Austrian Central
Authority to express
disappointment and dismay at Graz
court interpretation of Article 21
and states ``our legal adviser is
researching this matter and we
will inform you of our next
steps.'' Also asks how many
Article 21 access cases have been
filed in Austria, how many have
been denied, and the legal basis
for these denials.
5/22/98 Austrian Central Authority replies
to United States Central Authority
stating ``the applicant's attorney-
at-law has lodged an appeal
against the order of April 22 and
the court files have been
transmitted to the appeal court on
May 19. It Is up to the appeal-
court to decide concerning the
interpretation of Article 21 of
the Convention given by the court
of the first instance.''
5/25/98 Austrian Court of Appeals enters
decision which rejects the appeal
with respect to the application
for rights of access for April 10,
11, and 12, 1998; the appeal is
granted for the rest. The court of
the first instance is instructed
to enforce the recent ruling,
setting aside the previous grounds
for rejection.
6/1/98 Thomas Sylvester requests United
States Central Authority to define
when to expect its legal adviser
to finish researching the matter
and when to expect another letter
to inform the Austrian Central
Authority of its next steps. Also
requests United States Central
Authority to identify its strategy
in this case.
6/2/98 United States Central Authority
sends a memo to Thomas Sylvester
stating ``we're preparing a letter
to William Duncan at the Hague
Permanent Bureau concerning your
case. We all agree the Bureau
needs to know what Austria is
doing. We don't know what action
the Bureau can or will take. We
decided a diplomatic note to the
Austrians won't do any good''.
Thomas Sylvester writes to United
States Central Authority to
request Welfare and Whereabouts
checks on Carina Sylvester be
conducted by the United States
Department of State.
6/3/98 United States Central Authority
sends fax to Thomas Sylvester
stating ``we are in the middle of
preparing a letter to the Hague
Permanent Bureau regarding the
original court decision. I think
there's no reason not to send it
even if the appeals court
overturned. It's still an
appalling decision.''
6/4/98 Austrian Central Authority informs
U.S. Department of State that
Austrian Appeals Court has
overturned the Graz Court of Graz
decision on Access.
6/7/98 Jan McMillan sends fax to Dr.
Stephan Moser to provide a listing
of dates through 1998 that Thomas
Sylvester has prepared pertinent
to request for Rights of Access to
Carina.
6/15/98 Thomas Sylvester requests United
States Central Authority to
provide update on developments
regarding the Welfare and
Whereabouts check on Carina.
6/24/98 Thomas Sylvester is informed by Dr.
Moser that due to proceedings in
Austria, Thomas Sylvester will not
be allowed to see Carina next
week, as requested. Thomas
Sylvester informs United States
Central Authority and requests
action. United States Central
Authority sends urgent fax to
Austrian Central Authority asking
for assistance immediately and to
confirm Carina's whereabouts. It
was noted in the fax that the
appeals court's decision
instructed the Craz court to
facilitate the visitation request.
6/30/98 Jan McMillan informs Thomas
Sylvester the United States
Central Authority stated Welfare
and Whereabouts check failed
miserably. United States officials
in Austria contacted the opposing
legal counsel, who said the child
is fine and gave no other
information. Reportedly, Austrian
Central Authority informed United
States Central Authority that if
we had concrete evidence to prove
to that Carina is not living with
the mother, it would be
appropriate to go to the Austrian
courts for assistance to locate
the child. In the absence of
concrete evidence, Austrian
government/legal system is
unwilling to provide assistance.
Thomas Sylvester requests the
United States Central Authority to
instruct the United States Embassy
in Vienna to re-do the Welfare and
Whereabouts check.
7/2/98 Thomas Sylvester sends fax to Dr.
Stephan Moser identifying a
schedule of dates to be identified
in the court Order for Access as
follows: September 6-14 and
December 20-31, 1998. United
States Central Authority again
instructs the Embassy in Vienna to
make an attempt to see Carina.
7/3/98 Austrian Central Authority sends
fax to the United States Central
Authority stating ``I want to
inform you that Dr. Moser has
lodged--on July 2, 1998--a
modified application concerning
visitation rights with the
District Court of Oraz. On behalf
of Mr. Sylvester he requested an
unsupervised access for the period
from 6 to 14 September 1998 and
from 25 to 31 December 1998. As
soon as the court renders an order
I shall inform you immediately.''
7/7/98 Administrative Court in Oraz enters
decision that child support
payments are to be paid by Thomas
Sylvester to the mother in
specific amounts beginning October
30, 1995 and continuing to the
present and ongoing into the
future.
7/8/98 Thomas Sylvester requests United
States Central Authority to
address this case in its entirety
with Hague Permanent Bureau and
report violations by Austria.
7/13/98 Thomas Sylvester asks United States
Central Authority when it will
send letter to the Hague Permanent
Bureau on the developments in my
case.
7/15/98 United States Central Authority
sends a doctor's report dated June
29, 1998 sent by United States
Embassy in Vienna. The report from
the Austrian doctor, Dr. Dieter
Schmidt in Feldkirchen, Austria
states that Carina is 104
centimeters tall and weighs 21
kilograms, and the necessary
immunization has been given.
Thomas Sylvester requests Jennifer
Gorland, Assistant U.S. Attorney
to issue a Provisional Arrest
Request pertaining to the Warrant
for Arrest 96-8043 issued by
United States District Court
Eastern District of Michigan on
May 29, 1996.
7/21/98 Jennifer Gorland informs Thomas
Sylvester the Office of
International Affairs will not
approve extradition requests in
parental kidnapping cases with
Austria. Austria will not
extradite a citizen for these
charges. The Criminal Complaint
remains pending but is of limited
value unless Monika Sylvester
leaves Austria.
7/22/98 Dr. Stephan Moser faxes District
court of Graz document dated July
7, 1998 to Thomas Sylvester which
contains a statement from Monika
Sylvester that she will submit her
position regarding access to the
child within 14 days.
7/27/98 District Court of Oraz enters an
order on Access. According to this
decision, Thomas Sylvester will
have the right to see his daughter
at the mother's residence during
the period of September 6 to
September 14, 1998 and during the
period of December 20 to December
31, 1998 on Mondays, Wednesdays,
and Fridays from 4:00 pm to 6:00
pm, with the mother being present
all times. In separate litigation,
Dr. Moser submits an appeal to the
Administrative Court against the
Austrian court decision of May 7,
1998 regarding child support.
8/4/98 Austrian Ministry of Justice
informs the United States Central
Authority of the District Court of
Graz decision of July 27, 1998
regarding access and flirther
notifies the United States Central
Authority ``the order is not yet
enforceable as the mother has
still got the possibility to lodge
and appeal against it which will
then be decided as quickly as
possible by the Court of Appeal of
Graz. There would then still be
the possibility to lodge an extra-
ordinary appeal to the Supreme
Court against the decision by the
Court of Appeal of Graz.''
8/7/98 Office of Public and Congressional
Affairs, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Fugitive Publicity
Unit issues notice to all field
offices that the International
Crime Alert, Voice of America will
profile this child kidnapping
case.
8/10/98 International Crime Alert issued by
the International Broadcasting
Bureau, Voice of America at the
Office of Policy in Washington,
D.C. Contents of the international
public service announcement should
be used by August 17, 1998 by
worldwide English and all services
in the European division.
8/13/98 Monika Sylvester lodges an appeal
to the Austrian Court of Appeals
against the decision by the
District Court of Graz regarding
the access to Carina.
8/17/98 Thomas Sylvester sends fax to the
United States Central Authority to
express disappointment in the
level of support provided by
Office of Children's Issues.
8/21/98 Thomas Sylvester requests United
States Central Authority to
provide status on follow-up letter
to Austrian Central Authority on
next steps, as promised in United
States Central Authority
correspondence dated May 14, 1998.
8/24/98 Thomas Sylvester sends fax to
United States Central Authority to
follow-up on unanswered matters
including a letter to the Hague
Permanent Bureau, another
diplomatic note to the Austrians,
Whereabouts check and the delays
on Access.
8/25/98 United States Central Authority
informs Thomas Sylvester that the
letter to the Hague Permanent
Bureau has not yet been done but
is being drafted this week.
9/1/98 Dr. Stephan Moser sends fax to Jan
McMillan to inform her that ``due
to the fact that there does not
exist so far any legally valid
decision of the court which grants
some rights of access according to
the Hague Convention, the planned
visit of Thomas Sylvester would
have to be postponed''. Dr. Moser
tried in vain to contact the court
of appeals judge who is on
vacation and he tried to contact
Mrs. Birnbaum in order to ask her
whether her client would be
willing to give some visitation
right to Thomas Sylvester but she
refused. Therefore, as Dr. Moser
says, ``I can not advise our
client to come over.''
__________
Abduction of Amanda Kristina Johnson by Anne Franzen (AKA Anne Franzen
Johnson) and the Government of Sweden
Chronology
8/94 Amanda last in Virginia and the
United States
11/94 Last exercise of Thomas Johnson's
custody rights permitted by Anne
Franzen Johnson (Amanda in Paris
for Thanksgiving)
6/94-2/95 Repeated attempts by Thomas Johnson
to schedule 4 weeks of 1995 Easter
vacation in the U.S. in accordance
with the Virginia Order are
ignored or rejected by Anne
Franzen Johnson
1/95 Repeated attempts by Thomas Johnson
to schedule visitation in Sweden
in accordance with the Virginia
Order during early February are
ignored or rejected by Anne
Franzen Johnson
1/25/95 Anne Franzen Johnson secretly files
for sole custody of Amanda and
complete elimination of all
Virginia Orders Virginia
jurisdiction in the Solna District
Court, Solna, Sweden
2/1/95 In a telephone call initiated by
Thomas Johnson only to speak with
Amanda, Anne Franzen Johnson
refuses contact with Amanda and
suddenly demands without
previously raising the subject
that Thomas Johnson agree to
immediate psychiatric treatment
for Amanda; Thomas Johnson
responds negatively with an
immediate fax requesting an
explanation in writing (none is
ever received, but Anne Franzen
Johnson had raised the subject in
her secret filing for sole custody
on 1/25)
2/8-2/10/95 Thomas Johnson travels to Sweden
for visitation but is allowed by
Anne Franzen Johnson to see Amanda
only under supervision
2/13/95 Thomas Johnson receives Anne
Franzen Johnson's petition for
sole custody by registered mail
3/7/95 Anne Franzen Johnson refuses in
writing via her Swedish attorney
to comply with the Custody Order
by allowing Amanda to return to
the U.S. for 4 weeks of Easter
vacation
3/14/95 Thomas Johnson files an Application
for Amanda's return on June 10,
1995 under the Hague Convention on
the Civil Aspects of International
Child Abduction
3/27/95 Initial hearing in Circuit Court of
Alexandria on Thomas Johnson's
motion for an order finding Anne
Franzen Johnson in violation of
the Custody Order for Amanda and
wrongfully retaining Amanda in
violation of his custody rights
4/5/95 Solna District Court dismisses Anne
Franzen Johnson's petition on the
grounds that Amanda has spent most
of her life in the U.S., that the
agreed terms of the Virginia
Orders are that Amanda's stay in
Sweden is not permanent, and that
she is thus not domiciled in
Sweden
4/12/95 Hearing before the Circuit Court of
Alexandria and issuance of an
Order that Amanda's habitual
residence remains in Alexandria,
Virginia, that Anne Franzen
Johnson has wrongfully retained
Amanda in violation of the Hague
Convention and has violated Thomas
Johnson's custody rights, and that
Anne Franzen Johnson is ordered to
relinquish custody of Amanda to
Thomas Johnson on June 10, 1995
4/24-4/27/95 Thomas Johnson present in Sweden
4/25/95 Thomas Johnson allowed the only
overnight visit with Amanda since
11/94, but only after surrendering
her passport and only because of
Anne Franzen Johnson's desire to
disrupt his trial preparations and
exploit his jet lag
4/26/95 Hearing in Stockholm, Sweden before
the County Administrative Court
(Lansratten) on Thomas Johnson's
Hague Application with both
parties and witnesses present
5/19/95 Lansratten finds that Amanda has
her domicile in the U.S. and that
Anne Franzen Johnson has violated
Thomas Johnson's custody rights,
and orders Amanda's return as
requested on June 10 in accordance
with the Hague Convention
6/7/95 Administrative Appeals Court
(Kammarratten) issues a stay on
execution of the return order
6/10-6/20/95 Thomas Johnson present in Sweden
(no contact with Amanda)
6/13/95 Hearing in Stockholm before the
Kammarratten on Anne Franzen
Johnson's appeal with both parties
present
6/19/95 Kammarratten fails to respect the
Virginia Orders and reverses the
return order on erroneous grounds
that only Thomas Johnson's rights
of access, not his custody rights
have been violated until 8/20/95
7/14/95 U.S. Central Authority transmits
two Hague Applications by Thomas
Johnson, one for Amanda's return
on 8/20/95 and the other for
access to her under Article 21,
along with concerns about Swedish
compliance with the treaty
7/19/95 Thomas Johnson's Hague Application
for return on 8/20/95 filed with
the Lansratten
Swedish Central Authority dismisses
U.S. concerns, sends translations
of the psychiatric reports
unlawfully obtained by Anne
Franzen Johnson and ignored by 3
Swedish courts, and essentially
urges Thomas Johnson to submit to
Swedish jurisdiction
8/15/95 U.S. Central Authority transmits a
six-page memorandum to the Swedish
Central Authority raising concerns
about Swedish compliance with the
treaty (never answered)
8/21-9/8/95 Thomas Johnson present in Sweden
(no contact with Amanda)
9/7/95 Regular Appeals Court (Svea
Hovratt) ignores Article 16 of the
Hague Convention (regular custody
proceedings must be frozen during
pendency of a Hague application),
applies Swedish domestic law,
decides that Amanda's residence in
Sweden is permanent, and reverses
the Solna District Court's
dismissal of Anne Franzen
Johnson's sole custody petition
9/26-10/1 Thomas Johnson present in Sweden
(access to Amanda only at her
school for 1 hour on 9/28)
9/28/95 Hearing (lawyers only) in Stockholm
before the Lansratten on the Hague
Application for return of Amanda
on 8/20/95
10/6/95 Lansratten upholds the Virginia
Orders and orders Amanda's return
on 11/11/95, finding that her stay
in Sweden is limited under the
Virginia Orders and (expressly
rejecting the Svea Hovratt
decision) that she is thus not a
resident of Sweden
10/95 Thomas Johnson petitions the
regular Supreme Court (Hogsta
Domstolen) for leave to appeal the
Svea Hovratt decision on
jurisdiction (petition not acted
upon as of 8/8/96)
10/27/95 Kammarratten issues a stay on the
return order for 11/11
11/10/95 Kammarratten refuses to lift the
stay
12/13/95 Hearing (lawyers only) in Stockholm
before the Kammarratten on Anne
Franzen Johnson's appeal of the
return order
12/18-12/24/95 Thomas Johnson present in Sweden
(access to Amanda only at her
school)
12/19/95 Kammarratten orders Amanda's return
at 10 A.M. on 12/22/95, finding
that Amanda's stay in Sweden was
limited under the Virginia Orders,
that Amanda's domicile on 8/20/95
was still in Virginia, and
(agreeing with previous courts)
that there is no support for Anne
Franzen Johnson's claims of
psychological risks in returning
Amanda and thus no need for a
child psychiatric evaluation
2/20/95 Administrative Supreme Court
(Regeringsratten) reverses the 8/
95 return order for Julia Larson,
daughter of American father Mark
Larson abducted 3 times from Utah
by her Swedish mother
12/21/95 Without explanation, the
Regeringsratten issues a stay on
the return order for Amanda less
than 18 hours before the time
ordered for the return
1/30/96 United States Government Statement
of Interest filed with
Regeringsratten via the Swedish
Central Authority
12/95-5/96 Repeated denials by Regeringsratten
of requests by Thomas Johnson's
attorneys for a hearing, lifting
of the stay, an immediate
decision, etc.
5/9/-5/11/96 Thomas Johnson present in Sweden
(access to Amanda only for 2 hours
at her school on 5/10)
5/9/96 Regeringsratten reverses the return
order for Amanda, finding that
Amanda's residence is Sweden by
applying Swedish domestic law and
ignoring the Virginia Orders, the
Hague Convention, the U.S.
Government Statement, the
reasoninq of the lower courts, and
pertinent decisions by third
country courts
6/20/96 Diplomatic Note from the United
States Government is delivered to
the Swedish Government by the
American Embassy in Stockholm
declaring that:
the Regeringsratten
decision of 5/9 ``represents a
serious departure from Sweden's
obligations under Articles 1, 3,
and 16 of the Hague Convention''
and ``threatens the greater
objectives of the Convention''
``the United States
considers Sweden to be in
violation of its obligations under
the Hague Convention''
the ``Regeringsratten
decision can be expected to have
an immediate, negative effect on
transnational custody disputes
among nationals of Hague
Convention States--a result
manifestly and significantly
contrary to the Hague Convention
and to the best interests of the
affected children''
the United States
``strongly urges'' the Government
of Sweden to ``remedy the
inconsistency between Sweden's
hemvist law and its obligations
under the Hague Convention, and to
take all other necessary steps to
correct the Regeringsratten
decision of 9 May 1996.''
6/26/96 Request for Status Conference by
the Alexandria Court continued
until 7/2/96
7/2/96 Status Conference
8/9/96 Hearing by the Circuit Court for
the City of Alexandria on Rule to
Show Cause and Motion for Order of
Sole Custody filed by Thomas
Johnson
Order of Contempt and Change of
Custody issued by the Circuit
Court for the City of Alexandria
finding Anne Franzen in willful/
multiple/continuing contempt of
court, ordering her to produce the
child so that custody may be given
to Thomas Johnson, terminating any
child support obligation to Anne
Franzen, imposing a fine of $500
per day against Anne Franzen until
she returns the child to Thomas
Johnson, granting Thomas Johnson
sole and exclusive custody,
ordering Anne Franzen to pay
$75,000 in attorneys fees and
other costs to Thomas Johnson,
enjoining Anne Franzen from
proceeding further in Sweden with
any aspect of a custody or child
support petition, and reserving
jurisdiction
9/16/96 Thomas Johnson exercises joint
custody rights in Sweden by
picking up Amanda at her school
and spending 4 hours with her, and
is arrested in her presence at
their hotel by 4 Swedish policemen
upon the request of Anne Franzen
9/16/96-9/18/96 Thomas Johnson detained in solitary
confinement without charges and
released from custody
9/20/96 Thomas Johnson returns to the
United States
11/96 Swedish prosecutor refuses to file
charges
12/16/96 Swedish supreme court (Hogsta
Domstolen) refuses without issuing
an opinion to hear Thomas
Johnson's appeal against Swedish
jurisdiction (i.e., an appeal
against the 9/95 reversal by the
court of appeals of the 4/5/95
dismissal by the Solna district
court of Anne Franzen's petition
for sole custody)
12/19/96-12/20/96 Direct participation by Swedish
police in criminal conduct by
``supervising'' Thomas Johnson's
visitation with Amanda,
interfering with his custody
rights under both Swedish and
United States law, and aiding and
abetting child abduction by Anne
Franzen
1/97 Appellate brief financed and
supervised by the Swedish
Government is filed in Virginia
against the 12/28/93 and 8/9/96
Orders, and argues that Sweden is
a ``more convenient'' forum to
litigate custody because Anne
Franzen would be prosecuted for
committing the felony under United
States federal law of
international parental kidnapping
2/97 Order by the Circuit Court for the
City of Alexandria authorizing
Thomas Johnson to participate in
any Swedish proceedings without
prejudice to U.S. jurisdiction and
court Orders
5/97 Order by the Circuit Court for the
City of Alexandria imposing
additional damages and fines on
Anne Franzen
6/97 Swedish judge (Hans Frostell, Solna
Tingsratt) defers to vacation
schedules of Anne Franzen and her
attorney (Susanne Johansson), and
refuses to schedule a hearing to
arrange some kind of summer
visitation using ``mirror'' court
orders and other safeguards
9/97 Oral argument before the Court of
Appeals of Virginia on the appeal
financed by the Swedish Government
12/97 Unanimous decision by the Court of
Appeals in an opinion written by
Chief Judge Johanna Fitzpatrick
that upholds the Virginia Custody
Order, finds that Virginia
continues to be Amanda's
residence.and continues to have
jurisdiction, refuses to defer to
Swedish jurisdiction, upholds the
finding of contempt against Anne
Franzen based on her wrongful
conduct, and rejects Anne
Franzen's fear of a kidnapping
prosecution as an excuse for her
misconduct
3/98 Supreme Court of Virginia dismisses
Swedish appeal
6/98 Swedish judge reportedly willing to
speak by telephone with the
Virginia judge to discuss
solutions but allows Anne Franzen
and her attorney to veto the
proposed contacts
Anne Franzen refuses any form of
supervised or other access or
visitation when Thomas Johnson is
in Stockholm on 19 June, and also
rejects any contact of any kind
for the entire summer
Statement Submitted by Senator Tom Daschle
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for providing
this important opportunity to focus on the problem of international
parental kidnapping and to begin the development of policies to address
this growing problem.
Each year over 1,000 children are abducted from their homes and
taken to a foreign country. Too often, these children are permanently
out of reach of U.S. law and are never returned home. It is my hope
that the committee's work here today will help us to address this
serious problem, reunite children with their families, and prevent
similar kidnappings from happening in the future.
This problem became particularly important to me after I was
contacted by Kristine Zeledon of Watertown, South Dakota, last
February. Kristine and her husband Alban were finalizing their divorce
when Alban fled to Costa Rica with the couple's two children, Aidan and
Alen. Seven months later he is still there, beyond the reach of U.S.
laws, and Kristine has not seen her children since their abduction.
As a father of three children, I understand how painful these
months have been to Kristine. As a Senator, I am deeply concerned and
frustrated that the United States--the most powerful nation in the
world--cannot reunite two small children with their mother.
Unfortunately, American jurisdiction over this crime often ends at
our border. Many nations have not traditionally recognized parental
kidnapping as a crime. Others will not cooperate with U.S. extradition
efforts when the abductor is a native of the country to which he or she
has fled. And while I am pleased that an international agreement, the
Hague Convention, addresses this tragic problem by directing its
signatories to return children to their country of residence, I am
concerned that many countries still have not ratified the convention,
and that others are not strictly enforcing its provisions.
As the committee members consider possible legislation to reduce
the incidence of international parental kidnapping and ways to help
reunite families, I hope you will consider the following ideas and
recommendations:
First, we must redouble our efforts to encourage other nations to
ratify the Hague Convention and to enforce its provisions. While over
2,000 children have been returned to the United States through
proceedings under the Hague Convention, these represent only a fraction
of those that have been taken overseas. Indeed, over half of the
nations to which abducted children are taken are not party to the
convention.
We should also consider strengthening the Hague Convention to make
it retroactive. You can imagine the frustration felt by Kristine and
her family when they discovered that Costa Rica signed the Hague
Convention only after the boys were kidnapped and taken to that
country. Under the terms of the convention, it cannot be used to secure
the return of the boys because Costa Rica was not a party to the treaty
when the kidnapping occurred.
Second, we must educate our law enforcement officials and attorneys
so that they are better able to respond to cases of international
parental abduction. Too often, state and local law enforcement agencies
face a steep learning curve when an abduction is reported to them. This
limits the ability of these agencies to respond quickly and effectively
to a kidnapping. In many cases, better education would help to prevent
abductors from leaving the country in the first place.
In Kristine's case, had the judge had the opportunity to review the
American Bar Association's profiles of potential child abductors or
Kristine been advised to place a hold on the issuance of new passports
for her children, the abduction might have been avoided.
Third, we need to improve our ability to give parents like Kristine
the help they need to navigate the difficult and confusing maze of
agencies they must contact for assistance under these circumstances. In
the weeks following the abduction, Kristine sought help from her local
police department, local police in the state of New York, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children, the U.S. Department of State, Interpol and my office in the
United States Senate.
We need to provide straightforward guidance to the parents of
abducted children. I understand that Attorney General Janet Reno has
asked that the International Parental Child Abduction Guide, published
by the Department of State with the assistance of the Department of
Justice, be updated with the input of parents and brought into expanded
circulation. I applaud the Attorney General for her efforts, and will
support her in whatever way I can to meet these goals.
It is past time for us to move forward with new strategies to
address this problem. It is a common refrain now that the world is
becoming more interconnected, and as it does, I believe international
kidnappings will become more commonplace. It is essential that we
develop the means to resolve these abductions and return children to
the parent who has rightful custody.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your willingness to hold a
hearing to discuss this important issue. I look forward to working with
you in the development of legislation and in the recommendation of any
administrative measures that will prevent international abductions from
occurring and reunite children with their parents.
__________
Statement Submitted by Laura Kingsley Hong
memorandum
To: Committee on Foreign Relations
Copy: Senator Mike DeWine
Doris O. Matsui, Deputy Assistant to the President
From: Laura Kingsley Hong
Date: October 31, 1998
Re: The International Abduction of Rhonda Mei Mei Lan Zhang
Statement to the Committee on Foreign Relations
Mr. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE: My name is Laura Hong. I am
a partner at the law firm of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, resident in
Cleveland, Ohio and am the former foster mother and current legal
guardian and custodian of Rhonda Mei Mei Lan Zhang (``Mei Mei'').
At the invitation of Senator Helms, I submit this statement to be
entered into the public record because Mei Mei was abducted by her non-
custodial birth mother, Sue Ping Chen, on October 15, 1996, and taken
to the People's Republic of China. And yet, despite the clear terms of
the International Parental Kidnaping Act, the Department of Justice has
refused to issue an indictment.
First, on behalf of myself Tom Kovach and four year old Mei Mei, we
thank you for giving us this opportunity to submit this statement on a
matter of grave import. We also express our gratitude to Chairman
Helms, Committee Members Coverdell, Smith, Thomas, Grams, Dodd, Kerry,
Robb and Wellstone who, along with twenty-six other Senators and six
Representatives, have made requests to President Clinton, The National
Security Council, theDepartments of State and Justice, and the Chinese
government to facilitate Mei Mei's return home.
As the Committee is aware, in 1993, President Clinton signed into
law the International Parental Kidnaping Act, 18 USC Sec. 1204. The
statute makes it a crime for a non-custodial parent to remove a child
from the United States with the intent to obstruct the lawful exercise
of parental rights. The statute defines parental rights as the ``right
to physical custody of the child.''
Mei Mei was born in Cleveland, Ohio on November 4, 1993. As a
result of Ms. Chen's repeated neglect of Mei Mei, by court order dated
March 8, 1995, more than a year and a half before Mei Mei's abduction,
I was granted physical custody of Mei Mei. That right has continued
uninterrupted through the date of the abduction and to the present day.
In addition to the court order granting me physical custody of Mei Mei,
after Mei Mei's abduction on October 15, 1996, the Juvenile Court for
Cuyahoga County has issued several orders commanding the return of Mei
Mei, has terminated Ms. Chen's parental rights and has awarded me legal
custody. Initially, I was Mei Mei's foster parent; I am now Mei Mei's
legal guardian and custodian. Also, since Mei Mei's abduction, the Ohio
Eighth District Court of Appeals issued a writ of habeas corpus
commanding Ms. Chen to bring Mei Mei before it, and the Ohio Supreme
Court has upheld the issuance of that writ.
Yet despite these court orders, and the overwhelming congressional
and citizen support, the Department of Justice refuses to issue an
indictment under the International Parental Kidnaping Act; and the
State Department, citing the inaction of the Department of Justice,
similarly refuses to help.
The Act clearly applies here by its terms, and the fact that the
Cleveland U.S. Attorney has not enforced it sends a message that a law
is a law only to the extent the local U.S. attorney wishes it to be.
The Congress, in enacting the Hague Convention, explicitly stated
that the return of abducted children to their home state is of
paramount importance, and that ``Persons should not be permitted to
obtain custody of children by virtue of their wrongful removal or
retention.'' 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1161. The rights protected by the Hague
Convention include the situation when a child is in the care of foster
parents. ``If custody rights exercised by the foster parents are
breached, for instance, by abduction of the child by its biological
parent, the foster parents could invoke the Convention to secure the
child's return.'' (51 Fed. Reg. No.58, p.1505.)
I now direct the Committee's attention to the responses to our
efforts to bring Mei Mei home that we have received. The State
Department has consistently called this a ``private custody dispute.''
But it is susceptible to being called that only because the Cleveland
U.S. Attorney has declined to indict under the International Parental
Kidnaping Act. If an indictment issued, then, a fortiori, this would be
a federal criminal matter, and not a ``custody dispute.'' Moreover,
there is no ``dispute'' here at all; under Ohio law, her abductor, Sue
Chen, has no rights whatsoever with respect to Mei Mei.
Despite the overwhelming congressional support, which has been
ongoing for over two years, the President will not help little Mei Mei
and us because the National Security Council will not help us. The
National Security Council is ``unable'' to help us because the
Department of State will not help us. The Department of State will not
help us because the Department of Justice will not help us. The
Department of Justice will not help us because the Cleveland, Ohio U.S.
Attorneys' Office has declined to prosecute. The Cleveland U.S.
Attorneys' Office will not issue an indictment because the Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor's Office has not issued an indictment. The head of
the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office's Criminal Division will not
issue an indictment because, in his words, Mei Mei ``looks Chinese''
and ``belongs in China.''
Though our efforts to seek enforcement of the laws of this country,
and in particular the International Parental Kidnaping Act, are
detailed more fully in the attachments, I will summarize for the
Committee below our protracted and thus far unsuccessful efforts
directed to the Cleveland U.S. Attorney's Office and the Department of
Justice to obtain an indictment under the International Parental
Kidnaping Act.
The day after Mei Mei's abduction, on October 16, 1996, I provided
a statement to Cleveland FBI agents. On that same day, Cleveland Police
confirmed that Ms. Chen and Mei Mei had flown from Cleveland to
Chicago, Chicago to San Francisco, and San Francisco to Hong Kong. Ms.
Chen was travelling on her Chinese passport, and Mei Mei was traveling
on her U.S. Passport. With the assistance of the Department of
Commerce, we immediately electronically transmitted photographs of Mei
Mei and Ms. Chen to Hong Kong FBI agent James Wong. Unfortunately, we
were too late. Ms. Chen and Mei Mei had already entered the People's
Republic of China.
We were immediately advised that the Chinese authorities would
assist in Mei Mei's return if we obtained a federal indictment. We were
also advised that a federal indictment would facilitate an Interpol
warrant, and that that, too, would facilitate Mei Mei's return. Having
been so advised, we began a process that resulted in hundreds, if not
thousands, of requests for an indictment.
On October 21, 1996, six days after Mei Mei's abduction, Tom
Kovach, also an attorney at Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, and the only
father Mei Mei has ever known, met with Cleveland Assistant U.S.
Attorney, Gary D. Arbeznik. Mr. Arbeznik requested that we prepare a
memorandum of law and analysis of the International Parental Kidnapping
Act in response to Mr. Arbeznik's erroneous statement to me over the
telephone that the International Parental Kidnaping Act requires an
underlying state indictment. Despite the incredible pressure and strain
under which we were functioning, and despite the fact that we are
civil, and not criminal, litigators, we provided Mr. Arbeznik with the
memorandum; we did not, at the time, question why it was our obligation
to explain the law to an Assistant U.S. Attorney.
During the next few days, we received incredible support and
assistance from other law enforcement, particularly Hong Kong FBI, the
U.S. Embassy in Beijing and the Consulate office in Guangzhou, where we
had located Ms. Chen and Mei Mei. Unfortunately, with lightning speed--
just nine days after Mei Mei's abduction--Mr. Arbeznik, on October 24,
1996, without any discussions with me, notified the U.S. Embassy in
Beijing that the Cleveland U.S. Attorney's office had declined to
prosecute the case.
Though I continually called Mr. Arbeznik for a status, this
information did not become known to us until more than one month later
when Congresswoman Patsy Mink forwarded to me a Department of State
telegram from the U.S. Embassy in Beijing advising her of Mr.
Arbeznik's October 24, 1996 notification and also advising that
``without the requisite request from FBI Cleveland to work the case,
the U.S. Government has no legal authority to pursue [Mei Mei's] case
in China.'' Agent John Jacobs, of Cleveland FBI advised us that because
Mr. Arbeznik had affirmatively stated that he was not going to
prosecute, Cleveland FBI could do nothing further.
Thereafter, over the next fifteen months, we were left highly
insulting messages by a now-former Department of Justice Attorney
allegedly responsible for ``children's affairs.'' We were threatened
with local indictments for posting a web site about Mei Mei's
situation, and were flatly ignored by Cleveland U.S. Attorney Emily
Sweeney, with whom we left unreturned messages on at least a weekly
basis.
The first Department of Justice response we received to the
hundreds of letters from us, citizens, members of the Congress, the
immediate past presidents of the American Bar Association, Federal Bar
Association and the National Asian Pacific Legal Consortium was in
early 1997. Unfortunately, all these form letter responses did was
offer ``assurances'' that the Cleveland Office of the U.S. Attorney was
``thoroughly looking into the matter'' despite the fact that on October
24, 1996, Assistant U.S. Attorney Gary Arbeznik had closed the matter,
and announced that the U.S. Attorney was not going to prosecute.
The Cleveland U.S. Attorney herself did not respond to any
inquiries until October 23, 1997, more than one year after Mei Mei's
abduction, when she wrote me a lengthy letter advising me that the
Cleveland U.S. Attorney's Office was declining to prosecute Ms. Chen. A
copy of that letter is appended to my written statement. I bring to the
attention of the Committee, however, some highlights of the Cleveland
U.S.A's letter in which she articulated to us for the first time the
``basis'' for the Cleveland U.S. Attorney's Office's refusal to pursue
an indictment of Sue Ping Chen for the kidnapping of Mei Mei.
Though it would appear that, in theory, the letter was intended to
explain her decision, we were amazed to see that, in all its length (4
pages), there was not one mention of the International Parental
Kidnapping Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1204 (the ``IPKA''), or any other
criminal statute. She stated that her ``office [was] not satisfied that
an unbiased trier of fact will find Sue Ping Chen guilty,'' but her
statement was made in a vacuum, with no reference to the particular
criminal statute against which the Cleveland USAO claimed to have
assessed the probability of Chen being found guilty. And we found this
to be telling. Moreover, the Cleveland USAO did not provide any legal
authority for employing the standard she claimed to have employed--
i.e., the standard that an ``unbiased trier of fact will find the
accused guilty.'' Yet she also cited Section 9-27.220 of the United
States Attorney's Manual, which indicates that the ``threshold
determination'' should be whether probable cause exists to believe that
a federal offense has been committed, and ``that admissible evidence
probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.''
Apparently, the Cleveland USAO chose to apply a more exacting standard
than that set forth in the ``Manual'' when it came to enforcing Mei
Mei's rights.
Crimes, as we all know, have elements, and the decision as to
whether to prosecute for the commission of a particular crime ought to
hinge on whether the elements of that crime are met. Each element of
the International Parental Kidnaping Act is clearly met in Mei Mei's
case, and none of the affirmative defenses set forth in that statute
are available--even arguably--to Ms. Chen. Yet, while the U.S. Attorney
spent three pages discussing collateral issues of little relevance to
the issue of whether Chen violated the International Parental Kidnaping
Act, she offered not one shred of information as to why she was not
``satisfied that an unbiased trier of fact will find Sue Ping Chen
guilty.'' In particular, she did not share with us which elements of
the crime she found lacking. Her unwillingness to discuss the critical
issue--i.e., why the Office felt Chen would not be found guilty under
the International Parental Kidnaping Act for kidnapping Mei Mei--spoke
volumes.
The Cleveland USAO went on to state that the ``seeking [of] an
indictment against an individual in order to facilitate enforcement of
a civil court order is not a proper use of the grand jury,'' that ``an
indictment of Sue Ping Chen for [the] purpose [of aiding in Mei Mei's
return] would be an abuse of the Federal Grand Jury process,'' and that
``[t]here is no reason to believe that an indictment of Sue Ping Chen
would effect either her return or the return of the child.'' All of
these bases, of course, put the U.S. Attorney squarely in opposition to
Congress on the issue of the international abduction of American
children. As the Congress made clear in passing the International
Parental Kidnapping Act, one of the express purposes of the Act was
``to provide the basis for Federal warrants, which will in turn enhance
the force of U.S. diplomatic representations seeking the assistance of
foreign governments in returning abducted children.'' H.R. No.103-390,
Cong. Rec. P. 2421 (emphasis added). Thus, Congress believed it
eminently appropriate and advisable to use an indictment under the
International Parental Kidnaping Act for the purpose of facilitating
the return home of internationally abducted American children, and
legislated accordingly. It was always our understanding that the
American people elect the Congress to make such legislative
determinations, and that U.S. Attorneys are appointed merely to enforce
them.
This U.S. Attorney, however, clearly believes that she has the
authority to override the Congress.
The Cleveland U.S. Attorney then went on to note that ``the state
[of Ohio] has plainly indicated that it will not enforce'' the order
terminating Chen's parental rights and granting permanent custody of
Mei Mei to me, Laura Hong, and that this, in turn, ``raises a serious
question regarding federal enforcement.'' But it was unclear which
``state'' she was referencing. Apparently, it was the position of the
Cleveland USAO that the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, which
terminated Chen's parental rights and awarded custody to me, is not
``the state''; nor is the Ohio State Legislature, which enacted the
laws by which Chen's parental rights were terminated and legal custody
of Mei Mei was awarded to me; nor is the Ohio Court of Appeals, which
issued a writ of habeas corpus directing Chen to bring Mei Mei home;
nor is the Supreme Court of Ohio, which declined to vacate the writ of
habeas corpus directing Chen to bring Mei Mei home; nor is the Cuyahoga
County Board of Commissioners, the government entity charged with
oversight of Children Services, which has publicly expressed support
for the efforts to bring Mei Mei home; nor are Senators DeWine and
Glenn, who, along with more than one-third of the U.S. Senate, have, in
a number of ways, manifested their support for bringing Mei Mei home.
Instead, ``the state,'' as far as the Cleveland USAO appears to be
concerned, consists of one misguided individual in the Cuyahoga County
Prosecutor's Office who the Cleveland Plain Dealer labeled a ``Chen
proponent,'' and who publicly stated that he would not enforce Ohio's
laws in this case, publicly condoned the abduction of children from the
child welfare system, and caused the quashing of a City of Cleveland
felony kidnapping warrant for Chen's arrest that had been issued upon a
showing of probable cause by the Cleveland Police Department. It is
troubling that, notwithstanding all of the ``state'' entities that
spoke out in favor of bringing Mei Mei home in accordance with the laws
of the ``state,'' the Cleveland U.S. Attorney took its cue from the one
public official who had, in this matter, consistently maintained a
position contrary to law.
The remainder of the U.S. Attorney's letter was clearly geared
towards convincing someone other than us--perhaps her Justice
Department superiors--that the equities in this case supported her
decision not to prosecute. \1\ In the interests of fairness, though,
the U.S. Attorney could also have shared with her extended audience the
fact that the ``evidence'' she recited in her letter--i.e., the staged
welfare visit conducted by the Guangzhou Consulate, and the
representations of Chen's father as reported to her by Children
Services as to his purported willingness and ability to care for the
child--was heard by Judge Patrick F. Corrigan of the Cuyahoga County
Court of Common Pleas, and rejected outright. In the interests of
fairness, the Cleveland USAO could have cited the evidence--which was,
in the Judge's words, ``clear and convincing''--that led the Judge to
find that Mei Mei is not in a suitable environment, that Chen is
incapable of parenting, and that neither Chen nor Chen's father (who
kicked Chen and Mei Mei out of his apartment in Guangzhou on two
occasions, documented in the court files, because he ``could not
handle'' Chen's psychotic behavior) is capable of providing a suitable,
stable home for Mei Mei.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We note that the Cleveland USAO has ignored Section 9-27.230 of
the ``United States Attorney's Manual,'' which instructs the office to
consider as a matter of primary importance the actual or potential
impact of the offense on Mei Mei and Ms. Hong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In that letter, the U.S. Attorney also stated that Children
Services had the ``parental rights'' to Mei Mei at the time of the
abduction, apparently to suggest that Children Services, and Children
Services alone, had the right to prosecute on Mei Mei's behalf. The
International Parental Kidnaping Act, however, focuses by its terms on
``physical custody'' of the child, and Mei Mei was, by order of the
juvenile court, physically placed in my home. Incredibly, the U.S.
Attorney adopted the very same position regarding Mei Mei's physical
custody that was taken by Ms. Chen in our writ of habeas action--a
position the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals flatly rejected. As
I mentioned, the Ohio Court of Appeals found in the habeas action that
physical custody of Mei Mei was vested in me, and that, under Ohio law,
I was an appropriate entity to seek her return. The Ohio Supreme Court
refused to vacate the Court of Appeals' decision to that effect. In any
event, the International Parental Kidnaping Act makes it a crime to
``remov[e] a child'' and to ``retain[] a child'' outside the U.S. See
18 U.S.C. Sec. 11204 (a). Assuming arguendo that I was not wronged by
the removal of Mei Mei by Chen, I clearly was wronged, and continue to
be wronged, by Ms. Chen's continued unlawful retention of Mei Mei.
Finally, the Cleveland USAO ignored the fact that Mei Mei, too, is
a victim here, with her own right to have the laws enforced on her
behalf, and that I, as legal custodian of Mei Mei, have the legal right
to seek enforcement of the laws on Mei Mei's behalf. Along these same
lines, the Cleveland USAO made repeated references in the letter to Mei
Mei as Chen's ``own child'' and ``her child'' that are deeply
disturbing. Under Ohio law--and the Cleveland USAO acknowledges that
``[m]atters of family law are historically the province of state and
local governments''--Chen has no parental rights whatsoever to Mei Mei,
and Mei Mei is not ``her child.'' Thus, under Ohio law, the accident of
birth should no more subject Mei Mei to abduction by a birth parent
than it would any of the tens of thousands of adopted children in this
State. The Cleveland USAO's refusal to accept this was, in essence, a
refusal to recognize the authority of Ohio's legislature to legislate,
and its courts to adjudicate, that those who repeatedly manifest a lack
of fitness to parent will forfeit their parental rights. Moreover,
contrary to the U.S. Attorney's suggestion, Mei Mei is not a ``dual
citizen of the PRC and the United States.'' Under Chinese law, because
Mei Mei was born in the U.S. to a U.S. Permanent Resident, Mei Mei,
notwithstanding Chen's Chinese nationality, is barred from obtaining
Chinese citizenship.
The Cleveland U.S. Attorney was correct, though, in one respect.
There are no guarantees that an indictment of Chen under the
International Parental Kidnaping Act will bring Mei Mei home. But
Congress made a determination--with which President Clinton agreed
\2\--that an indictment under the International Parental Kidnaping Act
is an appropriate and useful tool in the efforts to bring
internationally abducted American children home. And while the
Cleveland USAO played word games with what the State Department told
her office, she did not deny in her letter that she was informed of the
State Department's opinion that an indictment of Chen would be helpful
in the effort to bring Mei Mei home. Whether the Cleveland U.S.
Attorney and the Department of Justice acknowledge it or not, they
knowingly erected a barrier to the return home of Mei Mei, a young
American citizen, by their refusal to enforce the laws of Ohio and the
United States on Mei Mei's behalf and therefore inflicted on Mei Mei a
grave injustice that continues to this day. We ask the Committee to do
what it can to help Mei Mei, and to ensure that no other children
suffer Mei Mei's fate because of a U.S.Attorney's unwillingness to
enforce the laws as written.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In his December 2, 1993 Statement upon signing the IPKA,
President Clinton made clear that, while the civil remedies of the
Hague Convention should be utilized where available, where they are not
available (as here), a criminal indictment under the IPKA is
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Kingsley Hong
__________
Letters and Comments Submitted for the Record by Parents on the Subject
of International Child Abduction
Center for Middle East Women's Rights,
50 Justin Drive,
San Francisco, CA.
Senator Jesse Helms,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Helms: This is my statement to be included in the
record for the Foreign Relations Committee Hearing scheduled for
October 1, 1998.
My daughters, Alia and Aisha Gheshayan, are two United States
citizens who were kidnapped from the United States in 1986. They have
been in Saudi Arabia for the past thirteen years and are held
incommunicado with their mother, their family, and their country. They
are deprived of all their rights and privileges as U.S. citizens as
guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.
As adult women living in Saudi Arabia (my daughters are now 16 and
20 years of age) they have no freedom of choice, no freedom of
religion, no freedom of movement, no freedom to chose a marriage
partner, no freedom to chose a career and must be submissive to any
whim of their father or male relative of their family.
In my thirteen years of separation from my daughters I have been
psychologically and emotionally tortured by the Saudi government
repeatedly. What they have done to me and my daughters is not even
human and is in violation of all human rights and all of God's laws.
Due to my efforts the United States signed the Hague Treaty, the
International Child Abduction Crime Act was passed and the Children's
Issues section of the State Department was opened in 1987. A letter
signed by 54 U.S. Senators to the Saudi King asking for the release of
my daughters was never responded to by the Saudi government. The Saudi
government never gave me a visa to visit my daughters until 1995 (ten
years after they stole my little girls). This was due to the pressure
from former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Raymond Mabus. I was
``allowed'' to see my girls in a hotel lobby in Riyadh for two hours
after ten years of separation. My daughters were almost grown and
begged me to take them out of there and home with me. I was guarded
like a criminal at the hotel and the Saudis then took my daughters away
again and I never saw them again. Such cruelty is beyond human belief.
I was not invited to speak at this Hearing and I believe the
witnesses that were called are not representative of the true tragedy
of International Child Abduction. I have offered several witnesses like
Mrs. Ethel Stowers, Monica Stower's mother, to speak about the torture
her grandchildren have had to endure at the hands of the Saudis. The
staff on the Committee is obviously not interested in our horrific
stories about the Saudi rape, torture and beating of U.S. children.
Sincerely yours,
Patricia Roush.
______
Center for Middle East Women's Rights,
50 Justin Drive,
San Francisco, CA, August 18, 1998.
Hon. Wyche Fowler, Jr.,
Ambassador, Embassy of the United States
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
RE: AMERICAN CITIZEN CHILDREN ABDUCTED TO SAUDI ARABIA
Dear Ambassador Fowler: As you are aware, since you have taken over
the post from Ambassador Raymond Mabus in August 1996, you have done
nothing to continue the pressure on the Saud family princes to release
my two U.S. citizen daughters from Saudi Arabia. In fact you are
calling the Saudis your friends as is quoted by the Associated Press in
the article about you and your Scottish girlfriend.
March 3, 1997
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP)--The State Department is seeking
clarification from former Sen. Wyche Fowler about how much he
is telling a young Scottish woman about his new role as U.S.
Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.
In a letter uncovered in a Scottish newspaper, Fowler, 55,
tells his 24-year-old pen pal that the Saudis are ``elegant,
candid and have a good sense of humor. We trade tales and
laugh.'' U.S. officials confirmed the authenticity of the
letter.
Fowler, who was posted went to Saudi Arabia last August, says
in the letter he has been ``meeting influential Saudis,
including the King, Crown Prince and his cabinet.'' He adds:
``I've been working very hard.''
State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns said Friday the
U.S. officials are seeking clarification about the matter from
Fowler, a former Georgia senator. Other officials said they
wonder how much Fowler shared with his friend about his work.
The friend is Josephine Morton, 24, a physiotherapist and
sports-shop manager, whose relationship with Fowler was first
disclosed in November by the Glasgow Evening Times, which sent
a copy to The Washington Post. The Scottish newspaper said they
had met on an airplane last summer.
``I do hope we will see each other soon,'' the letter said,
``I will work on it. I would love to see Scotland through your
laughing eyes''.
He said he will visit ``when I have no agenda--such as asking
permission to launch air strikes against other Islamic nations
from Saudi territory.''
That was an apparent reference to the Saudi refusal to allow
use of their territory for air strikes against Iraq last
summer.
Fowler, who is married, began the letter by saying, ``it was
wonderful to hear your voice last night--your accent being more
lifting and lovely than mine.''
You should have been removed from your post at that time, but I
suppose you and your congressional friends consider this type of
unethical behavior just normal. Afterall, what is adultery among all
the other vices you have learned in your political career? While Mr.
Clinton is on television begging for his political life due to his
sexual affairs, you enjoy not even a reprimand from your superiors. Are
your Saudi friends inviting you to their little sex slave parties in
the Kingdom?
I was not effective in convincing the Foreign Relations Committee
not to confirm you to that post in October 1997. You made all kinds of
promises about my case to get yourself back into the loop in the
Kingdom.
San Francisco Examiner--September 27, 1997
By Erik Tanouye
Examiner Washington Bureau
nominee fowler says he will help s.f. woman get back her daughters
WASHINGTON--President Clinton's nominee to be ambassador to
Saudi Arabia has promised to help a San Francisco woman whose
two daughters were abducted from the United States by their
Father, a Saudi national.
Wyche Fowler told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in
written testimony this week that he would ``work for a long
term satisfactory solution to this case.''
Fowler's promise came after Patricia Roush, opposing his
nomination in a letter to Foreign Relations Committee Chairman
Jesse Helms, criticized Fowler for failing to do enough to help
her get her children returned to her.
In her letter to Helms, Roush noted that former Ambassador
Raymond Mabus had pressured her ex-husband to give up the
children by refusing to grant visas to members of his family
who wanted to visit the United States, but that Fowler had
lifted the ban on the visas.
Fowler wrote the committee in response this week that
withholding the visas would most likely do little to guarantee
the return of the children.
He also called the Saudi government ``determined and helpful
within the possibilities of Saudi law'' in trying to resolve
the issue.
You, Mr. Fowler, lost my daughters after Ambassador Mabus left the
Kingdom. He had it all set up with the Crown Prince to have them
released. I have all those conversations on tape with Dick Herman and
Ray Mabus when this was being arranged. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR
DROPPING THE NEGOTIATIONS TO HAVE THEM RELEASED.
My daughters are now twenty and sixteen years of age and have no
allies in that Embassy in Riyadh that you are in charge of. All the
efforts of Ray Mabus are lost. My daughters are not the only victims of
U.S./Saudi political collusion. The list is long as you know. My
friend, Monica Stowers, who came to you to help rescue her and her
young daughter from torture and condemnation and who wrote the
following affidavit at the Embassy beseeching you to get them out of
that kingdom of torture, tells me that you wouldn't even meet with her
to discuss her inhuman situation. She continues to live with her
fifteen-year-old daughter in constant fear in some back room in Riyadh.
Her husband hired a ``hit team'' to kill her last year and sold her
daughter to a mutawa. Did you care? The answer is ``NO''. You are too
busy with your Saudi friends and girlfriends.
The following is an affidavit signed by Monica Stowers, at the
United States Embassy-Riyadh December 16, 1996.
``I am imploring my government and President Clinton to
rescue us from this dire situation. We need help to get out of
Saudi Arabia and you Must help us! If you don't, I may never
see my daughter again.
I am writing this affidavit as an appeal to my government to
take us out of here because I have no legal recourse and as a
Christian, I am discriminated against in the courts. As a woman
it is the same.
My daughter and I are U.S. citizens and we are appealing to
President Clinton to get us out of here before it is too late.
I've been in jail here before for refusing to leave my
children. They are U.S. citizens, born in Houston, Texas. Their
country should not turn its back on them.
WE WANT HELP. WE NEED HELP.
I want a written response as to what you will do for me. What
will happen to my daughter when I don't come home one day
because I've been arrested by the authorities? My daughter
stays alone all day at home because her father will pick her
up.
If you refuse to help us, I hold you, the U.S. government,
responsible for what happens to my daughter. She could also be
arrested for trying to leave the country on her own.''
Monica Stowers
Mr. Fowler, I am demanding the release of all the American citizen
children of the following U.S. citizen women:
Patricia Roush, Monica Stowers, Miriam Hernandez, Margaret McClain,
Diana Woodruff, Jennifer Martin, Peggy Mohammad, Kim Eckrockt, Laura
Butterfield Phillips, Vickie Melko, Dawn DiBennedetto, Gracie Khan, and
Kristine Uhlman.
This letter will be forwarded to all members of our organization
worldwide and also to all members of our other organization,
P.A.R.E.N.T. which now reaches forty countries. Our lobbying power
grows daily and Ambassador Prince Bandar and his Washington retainers
and ``torture lobbyists'' will not be able to stop us.
Did you know that on May 26, 1998, I was at the Saudi Embassy in
Washington and asked to speak with Adel Jubair and Rehab Mahsoud and
that they ordered the doors at the Embassy to be locked. That's right,
they locked me out of the Saudi Embassy. Rather than invite me in to
discuss this matter, they chose the ``honorable'' thing to do and
locked me out. Just like you locked Monica Stowers and her daughter
out.
We are demanding action now, or we will demand your resignation
from that post.
Patricia Roush,
Director,
Center for Middle East Women's Rights.
______
Barbara Dooley,
P.O. Box 5281,
Santa Rosa, CA, February 11, 1997.
Senator Jesse Helms,
Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
abduction of u.s. american born zaid ziadeh (birthdate 10/3/89) to
jordan
I am asking for your help. As Chairman of the Foreign Affairs
Committee, attention should be given to the problem of abducted
children to Jordan, especially since President Clinton has established
such friendly relations with King Hussein of Jordan, the U.S. gives
them Foreign Aid and sixteen F-16 planes this past July, and the U.S.
considers Jordan our ally.
This is a long commentary, but it is difficult to condense the
details of the past--the six year attempt with the U.S. government,
Jordanian government, United Nations, celebrities, news media, etc. to
draw attention to this heartbreaking drama of the January 12, 1991
abduction of ZAID ZIADEH from his American mother by his Palestinian-
born Jordanian father.
My daughter, Kathleen, met Jamal Ziadeh in San Francisco, in the
summer of 1988. He was very attentive to her, and both of them were
cosmetologists and had much in common. They discussed the cultural and
religious differences between them, but there was a way to work them
out because they were in love! Jamal said he had ``left his Islamic
faith'', and more than anything else, he wanted to become a U.S.
Citizen. He worked hard in Amman for 2 years to obtain a ``green card''
to come to this country, and arrived here in November 1986, and his
goal that he wanted more than anything was to become a citizen of the
U.S. five year later in November 1991, as three of his brothers,
Mohammed, Salah, and Naser, had already done. (Mohammed currently works
for Lockheed-Marietta in Sunnyvale, Salah works for LifeScan, a
diabetic supply company, in Milpitas, Naser is a Reserve Deputy Sheriff
in Los Angeles County, and a fourth brother, Mahamood, is attending
college in Southern California--all of them have been educated in the
U.S.)
Kathy and Jamal eloped to Nevada, and were married by a Christian
minister on November 2, 1988. The ``honeymoon'' was over three months
later when Kathy found out she was pregnant. Immediately, Jamal put
pressure on her to convert, and wanted them to be married in the Moslem
Mosque, and Kathy would not agree to this. Then Jamal insisted on Kathy
having an abortion, and she left him for two months. He begged her to
come back to him, even though he realized she would not have an
abortion. Kathy took excellent care of herself while she was pregnant,
and on October 3, 1989, she gave birth to a beautiful, healthy boy,
ZAID JAMAL. She nursed ZAID, and was always the sole caregiver to ZAID,
while Jamal was away from the home working or attending his Palestinian
meetings in San Francisco. Jamal continued to isolate Kathy from her
family, friends, and kept her captive in their home, with no money or
no transportation. In August 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Jamal
``turned'' on Kathy, and anything that bothered him about her, he
blamed on her being an American, and would say, ``you are just like
President Bush!''
Kathy became very depressed, withdrawn, and the only light in her
life was her little ZAID, and the joy he brought to her. When she
developed a mitro valve prolapse heart condition, and would have severe
anxiety attacks, she realized she was in danger from his continual
emotional abuse, and determined to leave him, for her own sanity, and
safety, as well as ZAID's continued well-being.
She left Jamal in September 1990, and continued to be fearful of
him. She allowed him to see ZAID, fearing if she did not, he would take
him, even if he had to break in the house in the night. She filed for a
legal separation, and the court hearing was scheduled for January 16,
1991. On January 11, Jamal asked Kathy to have an overnight visit with
ZAID, claiming his family was having a reunion, because Mohammed, who
works for Lockheed, and as a principle contributor to the space shuttle
project, had just returned home from Cape Canaveral. By the time on
January 12, 1991, he was to return ZAID, he and ZAID were on a plane to
Jordan, where his father, three brothers and two sisters lived (there
are ten children in Jamal's family). His brother, Mohammed, told Kathy
that she was ``lucky Jamal did not kill her before he left with ZAID,
because he could have done it and gotten away with it!''
Immediately after the abduction, letters were sent to United States
government officials, United Nations officials, Jordanian Government
officials and every organization associated with the abduction of
children, many were not answered, and those answered brought no result.
No contact could be made with Jamal and ZAID, and Kathy was totally cut
off from the most precious person in her life--ZAID!
In June 1991 Kathy met with the Jordanian Ambassador Hussein
Hammami who came through Santa Rosa on a speaking tour. He stated
``young children belong with their mother'', and assured her he would
``do all he could'' to have ZAID returned.
There were contacts with the Jordanian Government in Queen Noor's
Office, and a recommendation from them that Kathy retain a Jordanian
Attorney, Advocate Zuhair Abu Shamma. A Power of Attorney Document, and
a copy of the California Superior Court Order, awarding Kathy sole
legal and physical custody of ZAID, were forwarded to Jordan. Kathy had
no further input into the preparation of this court case.
Three court hearings were held (September 5, 22, and 29, 1992) and
the decision was reached that ZAID should remain in Jordan, even though
the Moslem law states a child under 7 years of age should be with their
mother. There was an appeal to a higher court, and as the records
prove, the Jordanian court proceedings are so lengthy that the outcome
arrived at is always ``in the child's best interest to remain where
they are, in Jordan,'' and that was the result determined. No court
papers were ever received by Kathleen from the attorney or the
Jordanian Government, and this information was obtained only by verbal
contact from a friend we have in Amman, Jacob Ammari, telling us of the
court results. In Jordan the government and the Moslem religion are
one, and Moslems look at, and judge non-Moslems as infidels.
On January 21, 1994, I talked with Najeeb Halaby, the father of
Queen Noor, on the telephone, and on February 1, 1994, Jamal
``suddenly'' called the U.S. Embassy and allowed the first health and
welfare visit with the Embassy and little ZAID. Pictures were taken and
sent to Kathy, and they were so bittersweet--such joy to know he is
alive, and a beautiful, healthy little boy, but so sad to see him, to
know he is being told someone else is his ``mother'', and not being
able to hold him, to nurture him, or to love him. I see my daughter
continue to ``die'' daily because of her loss of ZAID.
A second health and welfare visit was made in June 1994, and Kathy
said, with tears in her eyes, ``it's as though I have willfully given
my precious ZAID up for ``adoption'' and I receive `progress reports'
on his development!'' It is absolutely more hurt than she can bear.
I cannot tell you how the hours, days, months and years since
January 12, 1991 have affected our family. My daughter did not die as
Nina Abequa died in July 1994 at the hand of Mohammad Abequa, but Kathy
died emotionally, and spiritually when this precious little ZAID was
taken from her. She is cutoff from him just as though she were dead.
She has not remarried, and does not want other children, because ZAID
is the one she loves, and all she thinks about. Jamal has remarried,
has three more children, and he has gotten on with his life, even
though he did not divorce Kathy.
I contacted Anna Quindlen, the New York Times newspaper columnist
who wrote the article about Mohammad Abequa, who killed his wife on
July 4, 1994, and abducted their two children to Jordan. I read where
these two children were returned to the U.S. shortly after their
abduction, with the assistance of the Jordanian Royal Palace and the
New Jersey Senators Lautenberg and Bradley.
Ms. Quindlen wrote an article on ZAID on September 14, 1994, and
she was appalled that the U.S. Government allows these little American-
born children to be held hostage, against their will. Currently Mr.
Abequa is being tried in Jordan, but we have no news of this given in
the U.S.--Jordan knows how to protect their own.
Also, in August 1994, Naser Ziadeh, Jamal's brother called for
Kathy--the first contact he has made with her in over 3 years. He lives
in the Los Angeles area. He told Kathy he made a visit to Amman in
June, and saw little ZAID. Naser says ZAID is an extremely bright
little boy, and very sweet. Naser further says he ``does not want ZAID
to go to school in Jordan because ZAID will not get a good education
there, and would like ZAID to go to school here in the U.S.''
He further said that he and ZAID grew very close while he was
visiting in Jordan, and he took ZAID to a museum, and spent special
time with him. Naser says ZAID saw a picture of his mother that had
fallen from a box onto the floor, and knows that she lives in the U.S.
The night Naser was to leave, ZAID ``cried and threw a fit'' because he
wanted to ``come home with his Uncle Naser''. ZAID would not stay in
his own home, but insisted on staying with Naser and stayed awake until
2:30 a.m., until Naser was taken to the airport to return to the U.S.,
and all this time ZAID was still begging and hoping to return to the
U.S. with his Uncle Naser.
This is a sad story, because it means ZAID is not happy there, but
it was an encouraging story to Kathy because she feels he is not
``settled'' there, and that there is something inbred in ZAID that he
knows about his mother, and wants to return to her, and that it would
not be too traumatic if and when ZAID is able to return to her.
In October 1994, when plans were being made for the signing of the
peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, President Clinton, Secretary of
State Warren Christopher, California Senators Dianne Feinstein, and
Barbara Boxer, and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey from our District, became
involved in letter writing campaigns in an attempt to obtain the
release of these approximately 37 to 40 U.S. American born children who
have been abducted by their fathers to Jordan. (It is impossible to get
any information on the exact number of abducted children from the State
Department because they say it would violate confidentiality). If you
call Jim Schuler, Office of Children's Issues, (202) 647-2688, he will
tell you Jordan is a sovereign country, which allows dual nationality,
who has not signed the Hague Convention, the treaty of extradition, and
will give you every other reason why Jordan is right in keeping ZAID
there. Evidently, our country has no policy or makes any policy with
regard to abducted children--they just accept what Jordan dictates!
Many letters, telephone calls, etc., have taken place, but the
``thirty-second sound byte'' of attention paid to this matter passes
quickly, and the ``political'' focus passes even faster. On August 11,
1994, President Clinton was quoted in the news with regard to his
``worldwide campaign to erase Jordan's $6.5 billion debt''. Why not ask
for these abducted children to be returned in exchange for this foreign
aid. To my shock, I discovered a Bill was quickly passed by the House
and Congress within a few days and our U.S. American born abducted
children were not even thought of or considered as part of the
negotiations. Jordan was ``unhappy'' over the amount of foreign aid
Vice President Al Gore in his March 1995 visit promised they would
receive from the U.S. ($488 million write off of debts owed by Jordan
plus more than $43 million in military and economic aid) because it is
only a ``fraction'' of the $3 billion Israel receives and the $2.2
billion promised Egypt. On July 29, 1996, sixteen (16) F-16's were
``given'' to Jordan and when the U.S. wanted to land troops in Jordan
during the current Iraq confrontation, Jordan would not let the U.S.
use their soil!
On January 18, 1993 we watched the true story of Cathy Mahone, in
``Desperate Rescue'', who went `outside the law' to hire mercenaries to
return her daughter from Jordan to the U.S. We do not want to go
`outside the law' but want to believe that the United States, as the
last remaining super power, as they go to great lengths to protect the
human rights of citizens in other countries, will set the priority for
a little U.S. born child as ZAID is, who cannot speak for himself, who
has been denied his right to the love and nurturing of his birth mother
by being totally cut off from her, and his U.S. citizenship by a
violent, selfish, spiteful act of his father. The world is too small
today, and we must all work together to create a truly `human' race of
people.
Does the U.S. ever put any conditions, such as the return of U.S.
American born children to just ``giving'' away our U.S. dollars? It
makes me feel very unwilling to pay my taxes by my hard-earned money to
have it go to the country that is holding my grandson, ZAID, and the
country which has caused our family such grief, pain and heartache.
I believe the U.S. has abdicated the U.S. citizenship of ZAID to
the country of Jordan, and as I quote the U.S. Ambassador to Jordan,
Mr. Wesley J. Egan, in his letter to Najeeb Halaby (father of Queen
Noor), dated October 20, 1994, a copy of which is attached, along with
my comments. I believe a thorough investigation should be made into the
actions of the U.S. State Department, and the U.S. Embassy in Jordan
with regard to abducted children.
Also since Mr. Egan attached a copy of the March 1993 Appeals Court
decision to his letter to Mr. Halaby, I know Jim Schuler in the State
Department has a copy of this decision, and he ignores our request for
this. This decision obtained in Amman, Jordan by Zuhair Abu Shamma, an
advocate recommended by Queen Noor's Office to represent KATHLEEN, (she
was not contacted by the attorney for any input at all) for which my
husband and I paid for his services. We never heard from the court or
the advocate with a result to the case. An acquaintance we have in
Jordan, obtained an Arabic copy of the court decision, that no one
seems to be able to translate, and my daughter was never given any
information except that she lost custody of ZAID.
Did the court say she ``rides with hell's Angels, or is a
prostitute''? These are lies told by some Jordanian fathers, and the
American mother never knows what is said in court and has no defense.
My daughter is one of the finest mothers I have ever seen, and we have
hours of videos with her and ZAID, where you see love and devotion
showered on ZAID.
The Congress passed a PUBLIC LAW 103-173, dated December 12, 1993
(considered and passed House and Senate) which amends Title 18, United
States Code, with respect to parental kidnapping, ``(a) Whoever removed
a child from the United States or retains a child who has been in the
United States) outside the United States with intent to obstruct the
lawful exercise of parental rights shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both''. The U.S. Government should
insist on extradition of JAMAL, and other fathers, who have abducted
American born children and return the children to their mothers--or no
more foreign aid to Jordan!.
Because as a diabetic, my vision and health are failing very
quickly, and I wanted to see ZAID one more time before I go blind, so I
traveled alone to Jordan in June 1995 to see ZAID, and his father
allowed me to stay in their run-down third-story apartment, with no hot
water, and the conditions of my visit to see ZAID was that he would not
be told about his mother, or that I was his grandmother! What a
bittersweet experience! It just about killed me to see him in these
deprived conditions, and to have to go away and leave him behind. The
video pictures I took of him while I was there--a little, skinny,
frail, large-eyed boy without a smile, are very sad. KATHLEEN cannot go
to Jordan, because the State Department says in a memo, that JAMAL
could force her to stay there as his wife, because he has not divorced
her, and the U.S. could not guarantee her safe exit out of Jordan!
One further thing, in September 1996, JAMAL sent a video of ZAID,
who was 7 years old on October 3rd. JAMAL was trying to make ZAID jump
rope by having ZAID stand inside the rope, while two people were
turning the ends. ZAID could not jump, because he could not establish
the rhythm of the rope, and his father called him ``chicken'' in
English, and ZAID walked away, wiping tears from his eyes, and his
father was running along behind, taping this awful scene! It broke my
daughter, Kathleen's heart and she sobbed and screamed in disbelief
when she saw ZAID treated this way.
Kathy received a recent (undated) Health and Welfare visit report,
(only the fourth visit made in 6 years) and it was very upsetting to me
that they are made at the home of Jamal's father, which is a palace
compared to ZAID's home, where he lives 24 hours a day. The clothes,
shoes, and socks described in the report are items we sent to ZAID for
his birthday in October. It is a frustrating mixed message we give by
sending Jamal clothing for ZAID. We care very much about ZAID, but by
helping, we are supporting Jamal in his ability to keep ZAID from his
mother! Kathy received a card from Jamal stating he told ZAID ``that
this gef (Kathy sent ZAID) was from my girfreid. Zaid chous this card
and stickrs for his father girfreid he asked when she is going to viset
us. I told hem I don't know. maybe soon.'' [sic]
As the ancient prophet, Isaiah said, ``Can a mother forget the baby
at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne?'' The
answer resounds every time I see my daughter, NO, she can never forget
her precious son, ZAID and in the same sense, I cannot forget my
daughter, and see and feel her deep loss, as well as my own personal
loss of my grandson, ZAID!
Kathy is my ONLY child, and ZAID is her ONLY child, so you see how
precious he is to us--we have lost an entire generation! I mentioned
Kathy's mitro valve prolapse heart problem, aggravated by stress, and
I, as ZAID's Gramma, since his abduction, have been diagnosed with
diabetes, and am insulin dependent. This condition has been brought on
by the stress of ZAID's abduction.
I would like to request that you give attention to ZAID's plight
and other U.S. American born children held in Jordan, to try and bring
the tragedy of these children to the hearts of caring Americans. I know
it is an old, often told story, but until these little ones are
``home'', the story is not over. Everyone to whom I tell this story
cannot believe the U.S. Government allows these abductions to go on,
and why the government does not ``force'' Jordan with all the
negotiations they are involved in, to bring these children home!
Barbara Dooley
ZAID's brokenhearted Gramma
______
September 29, 1998.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that on Thursday, October 1, your
committee plans to hold a hearing on international child abductions. I
commend you for examining this difficult issue which, sadly, affects a
large number of American parents.
One of my constituents, Ms. Nicole Faulkner, is one such parent. In
1995, her 9 year-old son was taken from Florida to the Bahamas by his
father, Mr. Khalil Moses. Mr. Moses, who is a Bahamian citizen, is
wanted on Federal and State kidnapping charges. For the past 3 years,
Ms. Faulkner, who had been awarded custody of her son prior to the
abduction, has been seeking assistance through Bahamian authorities to
get her son back, but so far has been unsuccessful. She has been
repeatedly stonewalled by the Bahamian government. The Bahamas ratified
the Hague Convention in 1994. I have enclosed some information about
her case.
Ms. Faulkner's name was submitted as a possible witness for your
hearing through the Center for Missing Children and her attorney Mr.
Michael Berry. If you have questions, you can contact Mr. Berry at 813-
447-0533.
I know there are tight time constraints governing every hearing,
but I would appreciate it if you would consider adding Ms. Faulkner to
the panel of witnesses. Three of the four witnesses scheduled to appear
are fathers. Perhaps it would be good to hear a mother's perspective.
I would be grateful for anything you can do to accommodate Ms.
Faulkner. Thank you and best wishes.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Wolf,
Member of Congress.
______
Michael C. Berry and Associates, P.A.,
Attorneys and Counselors at Law,
September 29, 1998.
Seantor Jesse Helms,
United States Senate, Washington, D.C.
RE: Abduction of Khalil S. Moses, Jr. to the Bahamas, Senate Foreign
Relations Committee Hearing, October 1, 1998, Public Records Submittal.
Dear Senator Helms: Enclosed is a letter to you from my client,
Suzette Faulkner, whose child was abducted to the Bahamas in December
1995. My client has made diligent efforts to retrieve the child without
success and finds as I do that the U.S. Government has lost focus in
pursuing abducted children. It is the view of Ms. Faulkner and myself
that your committee is serving a valuable purpose by forcing the State
Department to exert pressure on non-cooperating countries. I stand
ready to assist you in any way in this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Michael C. Berry, Sr.
______
Suzette Nicole Christensen Faulkner,
43196 Wayside Circle, Ashburn, VA ,
September 28, 1998.
Representative Frank R. Wolf,
241 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. .
(Edited for updating)
RE: Abduction from the United States of my son Khalil S. Moses, Jr.
Dear Representative Wolf: I am writing to you about my eleven-
year-old son, Khalil S. Moses, Jr., who was abducted from Tarpon
Springs, Florida to the Bahamas by my former husband Khalil S. Moses,
Sr. My son is an American citizen. He was born in Florida and lived in
Alabama and Florida. His father is a Bahamian citizen who has lived and
worked intermittently in the United States. The purpose of this letter
is to request your involvement in this matter due to the facts of
mischievous and suspicious dealings by the Bahamian law enforcement
agencies, government and legal system.
january 16, 1997 hague convention trial in nassau, bahamas on
international child abduction
After much anticipation, a trial had been set in Nassau, Bahamas on
January 16, 1997 but after traveling there and expending more funds the
trial was cancelled. The trial is based upon the ``Hague Convention On
International Child Abduction'' which was ratified by the Bahamian
government in 1994. It is commonly referred to as the ``Hague Treaty''.
The U.S. has been a signatory country since July 1, 1988. The treaty
has been incorporated into Federal law under 42 U.S.C. 11601 et seq.
There are approximately forty-five countries that have signed the
treaty to date. The treaty basically states that the Bahamian courts
must abide by a valid U.S. court order concerning custody of the child,
order the prompt return of the child, and most importantly not
relitigate the custody issues but remand the matter to the U.S. Court
which had already determined custodial rights. Under the treaty, if the
Bahamian courts had entered rendered a custody order and the child was
abducted into the United States, upon application to the court in the
United States, that court would have the reciprocal duty to honor the
Bahamian court order. On April 1, 1996, the Sixth Circuit Court in
Clearwater, Florida awarded primary residential custody of my son to
me. The venue has been changed for any subsequent action in the United
States to my place of residence, Ashburn, Virginia. The order
culminated many years of litigation with my former husband who
continues to hide the child from me through a combination of trickery,
threats and abuse. In this effort I was and still am represented by my
Florida attorney, Michael C. Berry, Sr. In order to petition the
Bahamian courts I retained a Bahamian attorney in Nassau without
effect. The case number in the Bahamian court is 95196.
abduction
In December 1995, just a few weeks before the final trial in
Clearwater, Florida, to extend my custody rights to uninterrupted
custody and supervised visitation only for Khalil, Sr. due to his prior
acts, after 2 years of litigation, my former husband, who was
represented by attorneys the entire time, abducted the child and
disappeared in violation of a direct court order directing him not to
leave Pinellas County, Florida. No information was provided to me by
anyone as to his location or well being. A county show cause warrant,
state criminal abduction warrant and Federal kidnapping warrant were
issued for his arrest. On July 1, 1996, an informant divulged
information that Khalil, Sr. and Khalil, Jr. had been seen in Nassau,
Bahamas. I immediately flew to the Bahamas and discovered he had filed
some court papers ex-parte which were fraudulently seeking to keep me
from getting the child. He had been living with his unemployed father,
hiding on boats and in Bahamian hotels. Since December 1995 until
September 1996 he had not attended school nor had he received medical
attention for a bone cyst in his leg. I sought the assistance of local
law enforcement and legal counsel in a fruitless attempt to obtain my
child.
bahamian local law enforcement and government
Upon arrival in Nassau my husband and I went to the local law
enforcement office with my U.S. attorney and Bahamian attorney. We met
with an inspector who reviewed our United States documentation, his
position, and he agreed to take a statement from me which apparently
served as probable cause to arrest Mr. Khalil S. Moses, Sr. onsite.
Apparently there were corresponding laws which caused the wrongful
retention of a child to be a crime, Bahamian Penal Code (Ch. 77, Sect.
308). In addition, in reviewing my documents my Bahamian attorney took
a gun list and presented it to another police officer that I
subsequently visited because apparently possession of firearms in the
Bahamas is illegal. We were told that if we found Khalil to call them
and they would proceed to arrest him. At the same time my U.S. attorney
visited and informed the local embassy officials of the status of the
case. I was advised by my attorneys to follow the letter of the law and
let the legal system proceed. Soon afterward an informant disclosed the
whereabouts of Khalil. He was hiding in a hotel room which was under
the name of an individual from Tarpon Springs, Florida. During the same
time an FBI agent who covered the Bahamas from Miami was on the island
and informed me of the location of Mr. Moses. Coincidentally, he was
staying at the same hotel as Khalil. The FBI agent declined to get
involved. We called the police and Khalil was arrested and both he and
my son were taken to the police station. We called my Bahamian attorney
who informed us that a hearing was set by Khalil's attorney for custody
and I must go to the courthouse immediately. I did. My U.S. attorney
was not allowed in the courtroom. The court declined to issue a custody
order and we proceeded to the police station for what we thought would
be the pick-up of my son. Upon our arrival I asked to see my child
alone and was refused. I was taken upstairs to where they hold the
criminals, and there sat my son and my former husband, My former
husband was being interrogated by another police officer apparently
taking his statement under oath. I remember that they required him to
sign the document. My son was in between my former husband and myself.
No one else was permitted to accompany me. I tried to talk to my
son but he was scared and confused in view of the surrounding
environment. I pleaded for privacy and to get my son out of this
turmoil but was refused. My U.S. Attorney did likewise. Within 15
minutes an attorney came in to represent my former husband; apparently,
he was tied to the ministry of the government. He had a private talk
with the inspector. After the talk, the inspector told my U.S. attorney
that we would not get the child, we were to leave the island and if we
followed or harassed Khalil at all we would all be arrested. My ex-
husband's father, Joseph Moses, is a member of a very influential and
very wealthy Bahamian family of Lebanese descent, and it appeared as if
there was some form of third-party intervention, especially in view of
the fact that upon the appearance of what appeared to be a high-powered
official, we were told that any further actions on our part would lead
to our arrest. While this was transpiring, the FBI official associated
with the case did nothing to assist us. We also found out that the
local law enforcement official, the FBI agent, and the opposing counsel
attended a Fourth of July party that evening at the embassy. Faced with
what appeared to be a corrupt environment, my U.S. attorney advised
that we leave the country immediately and he requested that a Hague
Treaty petition be filed by our Bahamian counsel immediately.
bahamian legal system
After that incident we suddenly found it very difficult to contact
our attorney in the Bahamas. This was true even for my U.S. attorney.
He would not return phone calls or answer letters. After much
consternation he finally filed the Hague Treaty Petition. At the same
time we were told that some accusations were being made about our
activities in the Bahamas when we went there initially in July and that
there may be warrants for ``someone(s)'' (?) arrest. Was it me, my
husband, my attorney or what? It scares me to think that I could be
arrested upon arrival in Nassau for the trial this month. Were they
trying to keep my attorney off the island? I don't know. The embassy
informed us that the Bahamian attorneys are a unique group, very
independent and have little if any client contact. Nonetheless our
suspicions were raised and enhanced when we requested copies of the
court pleadings by phone and by letter. Finally my U.S. counsel
retained a documents retrieval company in the Bahamas to get the
documents which are supposed to be public records, as is the case in
the U.S., but much to our surprise the documents retrieval company told
us the court would not release any copies and that only if requested by
counsel of record would they be released. We requested by letter and
phone that our Bahamian attorney get the copies or issue a letter to
let the documents retrieval company get the documents, but that has not
worked. Consequently we have been unable to obtain any of the court
documents pertaining to the upcoming case. There is obviously some
reason, as yet unclear, that the files are not available for public
inspection. In our opinion this is an attempt by the father, and his
family, to conceal what has historically been highly fraudulent
statements in the pleadings. This pattern of misrepresentation and
concealment of information is consistent with our experience in
initially locating the child.
communications with my son
In the months since July 4, 1996, when I located my son in Nassau,
Bahamas, I have talked with him on the phone as often as I can but now
my communication has been cut off and the court has held proceedings of
which I have no knowledge. He is always in the presence of his father
and I am sure he is scared and confused. I know that my former husband
has spent a lot of time with statements that typically lead to
alienation of affections with me. I am very concerned about him and
oddly enough, recognize that he has a right to see his father (under
supervised conditions to avoid another abduction) if I prevail in this
matter. We are also strongly concerned that he will be hidden again
prior to or after the hearing as his father has a pattern of moving
without any notification to avoid enforcement of any orders. This is
not the first time he has run to the Bahamas. Oddly enough his father
did the same thing to his mother when he was a little boy.
united states embassy
We have asked the U.S. Embassy to investigate. The investigation
resulted in the consulate of the U.S. Embassy meeting with opposing
counsel, the father and child in the opposing counsel's office. The
meeting was inappropriate in that the child was not interviewed
privately and was undoubtedly subject to the stresses of a legal
discussion. My former husband has not attempted to shield my son from
the circumstances of this case. Quite the opposite he has used him as a
pawn. This pattern of involving the child in legal discussions
continues to disregard the emotional well being of the child. There are
indications that the State Department and the FBI are treating this
matter as just another family law dispute. There is a lack of emphasis
or appropriate pressure placed on the Bahamian government to treat this
matter with the necessary attention. This can be offset by your
involvement. It is very likely that the father and his family are using
their influence with the local police, attorneys, and government.
Sincerely,
Suzette Nicole Christensen Faulkner.
______
Maureen Dabbagh,
Executive Director of P.A.R.E.N.T.,
308 General Gage Rd., Virginia Beach, VA .
Hon. Jesse Helms,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Honorable Senator: In regards to the Foreign Relations
Committee Meeting next week in which you ask Madam Secretary to address
specific questions regarding international parental kidnapping . . .
BRAVO!
As the parent of a child who has been abducted, abandoned and is
now being held by a terrorist group in Syria . . . I can tell you I am
so tired of this issue being swept under the rug and the U.S.
Department of State, Division of Children's Issues using limited
resources and manpower to BRING FOREIGN CHILDREN INTO the U.S. via
their adoption assistance.
Please let us know what we can do to support remedies to abduction.
P.A.R.E.N.T. is an International coalition (Parents Advocating for
Recovery Through Education by Networking Together) with over a dozen
non-profit member support groups. We have chapters in France and in the
mid-east. I am the author of ``RECOVERY OF INTERNATIONALLY ABDUCTED
CHILDREN''.
Regards,
Maureen Dabbagh.
______
September 28, 1998
Re: Oct. 1 Senate Foreign Relations Hearing/International Abduction
(The Following to be entered into record)
From: Maureen Dabbagh
Dear Honorable Senator Helms: I am the mother of an 8-year-old
American child who has been illegally abducted to Syria.
My child is not with her father. I do have a legal custody order
form Syria. I also have U.S. and Syrian warrants for the arrest of the
man that kidnapped my child originally . . . her father, Mohamad Hisham
Dabbagh, a Syrian National.
I have not seen my beloved daughter since she was 2 years old.
Nadia Alexandra Dabbagh is being held in Damascus, Syria. Her abducting
father is working and living in Saudi Arabia?
Law Enforcement authorities have worked aggressively in my case,
i.e., Interpol, FBI as well as Voice of America, the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children our U.S. embassies in both Syria and
Saudi Arabia and numerous other agencies. The only agency that I am
terribly disgusted with is the U.S. Department of State, Division of
Children's Issues. Whoever set that office up is either a complete
idiot or they know nothing about international abduction or they do not
want the office to bring children home.
One Caseworker at Children's Issues actually told me that he
``preferred'' doing the international adoptions! As the parent of a
child who has been illegally taken from the U.S., I was appalled at
this man's lack of sensitivity. Bringing foreign children INTO the U.S.
to be adopted by American families should not be a priority over the
recovery of American children taken to foreign countries.
We are now seeing second generation abductors. My ex-husband's
father abducted his own children and took them to another country. It
was not until his two oldest children were nearly 50 years old, did
they learn that their mother was actually alive and they found her.
This is not just about custody. Terrible things happen to children
when they are taken into cultures that do not recognize even the most
basic fundamental practices that keep children safe. Abducted children
may face:
Female genital mutilation--otherwise known as castration
Sold into marriage
Abandoned into orphans
Abandoned on the streets in foreign countries
Killed by their abductor
This may seem rather exploitive of the subject, but in truth I am a
first-hand witness to the above atrocities. These things are not just
happening in Non-Hague countries. They are happening in Hague countries
too!
Currently, Senator Charles Robb (VA) is sponsoring a ``Sense of the
Senate Resolution'' in an effort to rescue my daughter, Nadia.
As I said earlier in my letter, Nadia is not with her father and I
have legal custody from the courts in Syria. So why can I not bring my
child home or even see her . . . it is because my child is being held
by a terrorist group known as the Muslim Brotherhood?
No Mother should endure the heartache of having a child abducted.
No parent should have to deal with the frustrations of a system that is
ill-equipped to handle the problem, and even worse, ignore the experts
that are doing something about this. No MOTHER SHOULD PICK UP THE
TELEPHONE AND BE TOLD TO HAND OVER MONEY IN RETURN FOR HER CHILD . . .
this is not suppose to happen in America.
I recently went on National TV and disclosed my child's plight
after years of silence. The State Department called me and ``demanded''
to know why I told all of America! They inferred I had misrepresented
my child's plight. I told them, to go to the Justice Department for
proof. . . they even have a web page up on the Internet telling of
Nadia's plight. They shut up real fast. Now, why would the State
department be upset because I told all of America that Nadia is being
held by Terrorists?
I want my child. I want my child home in America where she belongs.
I do not want her to stay in Damascus for another day.
If Nadia were the daughter of a U.S. Senator . . . she would have
been home a long time ago!
I have tried to remain positive over the course of the last 6
years. I have written a reference book on ``RECOVERY OF INTERNATIONALLY
ABDUCTED CHILDREN'' 1997, McFarland & Co., Inc.
I have started an international organization called P.A.R.E.N.T. We
are 10 million strong and have members in France, Belgium, Switzerland
and the U.K. We are going to the U.N.
Politics has no place in Human Rights! We do not compromise
American citizens for the sake of ``commerce''.
America belongs to the people, and thanks to Bill Gates, the
average American now has the ability to let their voice be heard in
mass numbers.
I admire your efforts to bring about solutions to this most
difficult problem. If you are truly interested in knowing how many of
these solutions are being successfully implemented by P.A.R.E.N.T.,
please feel free to give me a call.
Sincerely,
Maureen Dabbagh,
Mother of Nadia Dabbagh,
Executive Director of P.A.R.E.N.T. International.
______
George Massie,
International Kidnapping to Chile,
September 28, 1998.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
United States Senate.
the story of georgie
These days TV., magazines and newspapers are full of stories of
parents kidnapping their children and taking them from the other parent
without warning. Most of these have shown the father abducting children
from mothers. My story is different but altogether too common where the
mother has taken the children. The most surprising aspect has been the
authorities, through incompetence, honest mistakes, transparent
conspiracy in the case of a Chilean judge, and confusion have assisted
the mother and her in this and continue to assist her.
My story starts four years ago when my wife fled the U.S. without
warning. Before that I had a family, children, a nice home, two new
cars, my own lucrative business and money in a savings account. Very
much in love I married Gabriela Marcenaro Landa a divorcee with two
children from a previous marriage in 1989. In 1990 we had our first
child my only child a boy so we named him George Welton Massie IV and
we called him Georgie. Life could nor have been better. There were some
problems between her and my stepchildren's father because she
continually blocked his visitation, a mode of behavior she later turned
against me. But life was good until that fateful day in November 1993
when she ran away and kidnapped my son. What happened after that is a
tale of dishonesty cruelty and pain, pain that continues to this day.
Two fathers, myself and Salvador Landa do not have our children anymore
and no right anyone will enforce to be able to see them. How in this
modern world of communications, legal systems, and international law
could this have happened?
On November 3, 1993 my aged mother living in Dallas was forced for
health reasons to sell the family home and move to Arizona where she
could get medical care. I drove the 1,400 miles from Miami to help her.
While I was driving, unknown to me, my wife was packing the children's
toys and clothes, taking the money from our savings account and buying
airplane tickets to her native Chile. Just as I arrived in Dallas she
called and said ``I am sorry but I have taken your son (Georgie then
3\1/2\ years old) and gone to Chile you probably won't see him again''.
She also took the children from her previous marriage Salvador's
children Gabriella 9 and Nicolas 6. There was no warning for me or
Salvador, the shock was tremendous.
That same night in disbelief and despair I flew back to Miami to
see if it could be true, to see if something could be done. I was
picked up at the airport by Georgie's Godfather Florida State Fire
Marshall Antonio Samper and we went to my home. The emotional strain as
we approached the house was unbearable, hoping against hope that
somehow it wasn't true. The house was dark and as the front door was
opened. Whether by the wind or curious fate, Georgie's wind up mobile
started playing a forlorn ``Old McDonald Had a Farm'' in a dirge as
only a windup toy, spring force almost depleted, can sound. But the
house was empty not just empty but empty in a way only a house that had
once been full of children's laughter can be. I wept uncontrollably in
shock and pain.
That same night I called the Metro Dade Police (Miami) and asked
them to come make a report. They told me it wasn't their problem
because we were still married it was a domestic issue. Anthony Samper
picked up the phone and demanded they make a report, again they
refused. The next day I called the Florida State Attorney's Office the
U.S. Attorney's office and was told the same thing it's a domestic
problem they couldn't help. I contacted lawyers both here and in Chile
and was told the same thing. There was nothing I could do . . .
nothing. Much later I found that this advice was terribly wrong, it is
a sad fact that so many people in authority have no idea how to handle
this problem and that their advice forced me to do things that would
make justice even more difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. It
seemed the only way I could ever see my son was to go to Chile to live
close enough to help him to somehow be his Dad.
I was frantic my wife's actions were clearly not of a mentally
balanced person. Recent psychological evaluation of her was very clear
in stating she has deep problems. Georgie and the other kids were in
danger. If there were problems with the marriage there is simple
separation and divorce, certainly not taking an action as radical as
this. I tried to reach her by phone but she had gone into hiding near
Chillan, Chile with the help of her brother Jorge.
In Chile Gabriela had entered the country illegally, she had used a
Chilean passport but she is a naturalized U.S. citizen and dual
nationality isn't allowed there, although I found out later their laws
are ``flexible''. She had registered Georgie under another name and had
registered him as an illegitimate child for his ``new'' Chilean birth
certificate. All of this I discovered later. After she arrived there
she found that the money she had taken with her (she removed $25,000
from our joint savings account before she left) wouldn't last very
long. Without a place to live or a car her future there was not bright.
Later she agreed that if I were to ship her a car to her I could visit
George, could see him and be with him. Clearly the pattern of blackmail
was beginning with a 3\1/2\ year old child and his father's love for
him the tools she would use. I believed I had no choice but to comply.
Over the next months I traveled to Chile and during that period she
allowed me to see Georgie more and more. She agreed that, provided I
would invest in a business and a farm in Chillan, Chile I could move
there and we could try to work things out. To do this, to raise the
money, I had to sell all the personal things I could, withdraw all the
savings we had left and move all my family belongings to Chile.
Perhaps, I reasoned, over time I could convince her to return to the
U.S. Because of what all the authorities had said if I was really to
help my son Georgie this was the only way. I couldn't kidnap him as she
did, he had been through enough and I believe all kids deserve a Mom
and a Dad. If there is any possibility to give him both I would.
I financed the purchase of a store and its inventory a farm and a
truck at a cost of $200,000. I was told by the Chilean Consulate in
Miami that before I could put anything in my name or be involved in any
financial transactions I had to have Chilean residency so I applied for
that. Because Chile has community property laws I was advised by
Chilean lawyers it wasn't important that the property I paid for prior
to obtaining residency was in her name, her Chilean name. Later I found
out how wrong that was. Being desperate to be with my only child and
reunite my family I moved to Chillan, Chile in August 1994.
For a short while we had a family again. In a strange land, in a
Third World country, but nevertheless a family. The family lasted until
my U.S. money ran out in February 1995. When that happened she called
the police and said we weren't married legally (she had not registered
our U.S. marriage in Chile as she said she had). They demanded I leave
the apartment immediately. They also said I wasn't Georgie's legal
father because she had registered him as illegitimate in Chile so I had
no right to see him. But it got worse, much worse. The shop, the farm,
the truck, were hers not mine! I was on the street, no money, no
transportation, no son. She even took the only cash money I had from my
locked brief case along with my passport and other personal papers.
This was all condoned in Chile, the police supported her actions. A
country that is striving to be a part of the modern industrial group of
nations.
If the story ended here it would relate enough pain but it doesn't.
Because she had signed all the documents for our farm as a single
person she was able to sell it to her brother and keep the money.
Because when she set up the children's prepaid college fund in Florida
in 1991 she listed herself as the sole beneficiary she was able to take
their money and keep it for herself. Stealing their future. After
forcing me from our apartment she blocked me from visitation with my
son. It seemed I had no place to turn for help.
Again I tried to get legal help. It was impossible to believe that
this could happen in any civilized country, that I had lost everything
but the most important thing to me was that my son was kept from me. I
hired a Chilean lawyer just to be able to see my son. But the local
Judge was sick so nothing happened. Later I learned from her that the
Family Court Judge was a friend of hers. Gabriela still kept Georgie
from me. Surely I thought this kind of total disregard of a son's
rights, a father's rights, rights of a legal marriage and its
responsibility wasn't possible.
A glimmer of hope the Hague Convention, an international treaty for
the return of abducted children was explained to me by the U.S. State
Department . . . again a dead end Chile didn't sign it until July 1994.
No help to me because it isn't retroactive, she kidnapped the kids to
Chile scant months before Chile signed it. But there is part of the
Convention that provides for return of children for visitation, another
glimmer of hope. But although this does apply Chile has refused to
honor the treaty it signed. Not just in my case but in all cases, so
much for Chilean honorability and a just place in the nations of the
world.
Chile that requires both parents to sign before a Chilean child can
leave the country--a country zealously guarding against abduction is
obviously hypocritical and not concerned about other countries parent's
rights because of this case and many others where they have failed to
react. In fact they have not honored this treaty in one case on three
years. Chile also signed the UNICEF agreement about children's rights,
again a country that wants to look good to the world but does not want
to honor its pledges.
Not being able to help my son in Chile and on the advice of lawyers
both in the U.S. and Chile I returned to the U.S. Here I was told there
could be justice and again that turned out to be a mirage. Because I
was blackmailed with Georgie as a hostage, blackmailed to going to
Chile and living in the apartment with my wife some legal opinions are
that Chile has jurisdiction, the same country that couldn't even help
me get any visitation! Back in the Unite States, despite all I have
been led to believe, despite what she has done, there appears to be
little hope, little hope for Georgie. After spending over $18,000 here
and $6,000 in Chile in legal fees there still there is no end in sight
I still cannot see my son let alone have him with me. The specifics of
this are documented facts and it is puzzling because in spite of them
and the obvious fraud they clearly expose, Georgie is severed from his
father and lost in a Third World country.
How can a U.S. judge not have jurisdiction? Georgie was born in the
U.S. to two U.S. citizens. Citizens legally married in the U.S. He was
undoubtedly abducted, there are too many witnesses, too much evidence
for there to be doubt. In Chile he has no rights he is illegitimate
because of her falsely registering him and must bear the stigma of that
throughout his life there. She has stolen money here both from me and
from Georgie by taking his college fund and from the other children
too. Sal Landa has two children, my step children, he hasn't seen for
over 2 years. A U.S. Court, as is customary here awarded joint custody
to him and Gabriela. Later without advising him of the hearing a
Chilean Judge, her friend, overruled the U.S. Court and awarded
Gabriela full custody. She has lied in almost every document she has
signed, she has falsely denied a legal marriage exists, she has taken
property and money both in the U.S. and Chile.
The story isn't ended and may never be. I cannot stop trying to
give my son a good life. I cannot stop trying to be a good father. Not
until justice of some reasonable sort is obtained. Should kidnapping be
rewarded? Should fraud be rewarded? Apparently for now both are and the
children and father continue to suffer. As for my case the minors
Georgie, Nicolas and Gabriella need to be returned to the United States
where they were born and have spent most of their lives. Then custody,
visitation and the children's welfare could be decided by a Judge who
can be aware of all the facts without bias. In the larger view how can
this kind of crime be stopped? So other parents, fathers and mothers
alike, do not have to go through something like this. Simple, minors
under 12 years cannot leave the U.S. without the written approval of
both parents just as Chile does just as most countries do.
Post script
The above was written in 1995 what has happened since? Today is
September 1998.
The U.S. Court failed to do anything so I moved back to Chile to
see Georgie. I went to a judge here and got some visitation, terrible
by U.S. standards but I do see him.
The Hague convention has proved worthless, Chile has refused to
honor it although they have signed it. Our State Department seems
powerless. So if you do international business get cash or product
first. They sign papers they do not honor.
I did register Georgie legally in Chile so he is not a bastard
anymore.
I must pay her support to see him or go to jail, the support for
him is OK but she is legally married to me and now is pregnant with
another child by another person.
I am told no property can be regained by me, Chile supports her
fraud.
As a last point I found out she had been married 4 times in the
U.S. and lied on the marriage license with me, that seems unimportant
here.
George Massie.
______
Hon. Jesse Helms,
Senator, United State Senate,
Washington, D.C.
Via Fax form Chile
Dear Senator: Previously I sent the story of my son, George Massie,
however here is another I am working on to help the father. As I have
to be here in Chile to continue my fight I also help others in the same
situation.
The below is an email from Jim Staley to me I felt I should share
with you as it shows the problem we face.
Sincerely,
George Massie.
[email protected] wrote:
Hi George, I am having another sleepless night here in
Virginia. I have so many things going through my head and I
really miss my son. I just can't believe my wife would go to
these limits. Taking all the photos, all the memories, the
household furnishings, and then disappearing from the face of
the earth. I can't believe she felt like she had to run off
like this.
At this point in time I don't even know where she and my son
are. This is making me very worried and giving me a great
amount of anxiety. The FBI said they searched the Customs data
base and don't have her listed leaving the country. A few of
her friends said they had no idea she was leaving. I called her
mother's house and her mother turned on the radio and put the
phone next to the radio for 5 minutes and then she hung the
phone up. I called several more times and her mother does other
strange things.
I got a lawyer and got an emergency temporary custody order
for my son. However, the hard thing is finding her and my son.
My lawyer has handled several cases like this that involved
Jordan and Argentina. He told me that he would now work with
the FBI to try to find her. He feels very confident and this
makes me feel a little better. He also connected me with a
therapist that has experience in these cases. I visited him
last week and I will go visit him tomorrow. Basically he helps
me cut down on the anxiety pressure created from this awful
situation.
I just received a duplicate copy of my marriage certificate
from PA, but I still would like to get my son's birth
certificate. I feel so stupid that I didn't make a copy of his
birth certificate and passport, but I also would have never
thought a person (my wife) could ever do such a terrible thing
to another person. Would you be able to get his birth
certificate with the following information?
I don't have my sons R.U.N. The only information that I have is
the following:
My sons name: James Gregory Staley Marusic
DOB: 22 September 1996
Born at: Clinica Tabancura (I don't have it yet but I will
get the doctors name)
My wife's name: Victoria Susana Marusic Jara
DOB: 23 November 1965
R.U.N: 9.607.363-1
Nro. Inscripcion: 1.007
Her mothers name: Silvia Manuela Jara Alegria
Her fathers name: Antonio Mirko Marusich Martinich
Also, does Santiago have phone books like we do in the USA?
Do they have them on CDs? I would like to look up the people
connected to several phone numbers that my wife made to
Santiago in the past month. I'm thinking that this may give me
a lead to my son.
Thank you very much and may God take care of our children,
Jim
September 18, 1998.
George,
I wrote you about a year ago and told you my pregnant Chilean
wife of 7 month's abandoned me on June 3, 97 and retuned to
Santiago. I was devastated!
You replied with advice and I still can't believe although we
are married in the USA we are not in Chile. After you told me
about this I played stupid with my wife and it appears that she
knew this all along. Stupid me!
Then, I made a very surprise visit to Santiago on 21
September 97. I brought about $1,500.00 of baby things and
stated that I was there to pay for the birth of the child. So,
my wife and her family kindly let me take part in the birth of
the Child and I stay with her at Clinica Tabancura for 5 days.
My son Little Jimmy was born at 3 AM on September 22, 97. It
was such a great feeling and the best five days of my life.
However, when I returned to her parent's house they put me out
after 3 days. Her mom and sister insisted that I should not
touch the baby because they didn't want him to get attached to
me. I constantly argued with them for my rights, but in the end
my wife agreed with her mom and sister. Plop! After getting
thrown out of their house I was so expired that I ended up at
the airport and waited there for 1.5 days and got a flight back
to Wash D.C. I was lucky to have a free ticket from the miles I
gained over the past several years because this ticket allowed
me to change the dates very easily and without any penalties.
30 minutes into the flight I got up to use the restroom and
collapsed on the floor of the isle. The flight attendants used
oxygen to revive me and later said that I was pale white and
they could not read my pulse. They actually thought I was dead
and was going to land the plane.
Over the next 11 months and 3 weeks I tried to get my wife to
register my Son as an American Citizen and to submit her
immigration papers. I sent all the paperwork and all she had to
do was bring them to the Embassy and get a medical physical.
The Embassy agreed to review all the documents and they
suggested that I remain in the USA in case they needed more
information.
They stated that when the time came to sign the citizen
papers (2 weeks) that they would call me and I would have to
return to Chile. I agreed to this. But, my wife would not take
the papers to the Embassy. Later I would find out why!
On May 21, 98 my wife made an unannounced return visit to
Wash D.C. She said she had a fall out with her family and that
she wanted to make a new start because of the baby. At the time
I was so happy to see my Son that I let her back into the
house. I should have at least made her register our marriage in
Chile and make her sign the immigration documents to allow my
Son to become an American. I did tell her that I wanted her to
do the above things with my help, but she always put them off
and started a huge argument or fight. She became very violent
and would break my things. Over the next four months I spent
about 4K on baby things and bought her a new Camry.
Over the next four months I formed a very strong bond with my
Son. The only word he would say was Dada. He actually would
wakeup in the morning and yell Dada, Dada, Dada. We did
everything together. Camping, hiking, biking, and he loved the
outdoors. He became my total life. I loved giving him a bath,
feeding him his milk, reading to him, changing his diaper, and
especially playing with him. I loved when we watched Sesame
Street together and when he used to want to hug me.
On Monday September 14, 98 I came home from work and my house
was almost completely empty. My wife took about 8K worth of
stuff. She kidnapped my Son. My Little Jimmy! The house was a
wrecked like it got hit by a hurricane. I was in such a state
of shock. Where is my Son! How can anyone do such a terrible
thing? I cried, I collapsed on the floor, and I felt like
someone had just ripped out my heart and smeared the blood on
my face. How cruel can a person be? Why?
I have not slept for 4 nights and I feel terrible. It took me
2 painful days to cleanup my house and I filled 8 large sized
garbage bags of paper, food, broken items, and boxes. The most
painful area was Little Jimmy's bedroom. He had his own master
bedroom and I had it fixed up with a playhouse, train set, and
many other toys. It was all gone except the crib, dresser, and
changing station. My eyes are tearing and I feel like I'm going
to vomit at this very minute. How could she do this?
I talked with the neighbors and it appears that her sister
and brother-in-law came to Wash D.C. and helped her pillar my
home and rob my Son. The audacity of these people. How could
they? I filed a police report that that's all the police could
do. They told my that it was perfectly legal what my wife did
to me and that she is allowed to take my Son anywhere because
we did not have any custody orders and a divorce papers in
place. I contacted the FBI and they where very sympathetic but
said that they could not attempt to stop my wife or find her
because she didn't have a child custody warrant for her arrest
and that the local court system would have to put a warrant out
on her. Now the local judge is stating that I have to file for
custody it could take up to 6 month's and cost 15K. I now feel
this country's legal system is terrible. I contacted the
Children's Office at the State Department and talked with Drew
Haldane. He told me that I had to complete the forms for the
Hague Convention. I asked how long this would take and he said
6 months. I then told him to read your URL story and that I
didn't believe him. I can't believe he did not even know about
your URL Site.
What to do now?
My wife is hiding somewhere in Chile and I don't know where
my Son is. I think she is at her parent's house at Manuel
Rodriguez 1020, Maipu, Santiago but I really don't know.
Right now the only options I seem to have are:
1. Go to Santiago and hire a detective to find her. But, then
what do I do if I find her? Get a lawyer in Santiago and fight
for custody of the Child?
2. Wait 6 month's to get a custody warrant so that the FBI
can attempt to locate her?
3. Complete the Hague Convention forms and then fight for
custody in Chile?
Can you give me any advice? Do you know a great lawyer that
can help me in Santiago? Do you know how I can obtain my Son's
birth certificate in Santiago?
Any help would be great for my emotions right now.
Thank You,
Jim Staley.
______
July 29, 1998.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Washington, DC
RE: Rinaman Child Abduction--Germany
Dear Senator Helms: I understand you are investigating Hague
Convention Compliance. With this letter, I am providing you with some
documents and facts that may assist you regarding Germany.
I was married to a German woman while I was a Judge Advocate in the
Army in Europe. We lived in Italy, and then in Germany for one year,
where our daughter, Julia was born. Five months after Julia was born,
we moved to Washington, D.C., purchased a home, and I planned to leave
the Army for a civilian job in D.C. My wife's mother came to visit for
several months. During that time, my wife was apparently convinced by
her mother to leave our marriage and return to Germany.
On June 1, 1996, about ten months after we moved to D.C., my wife
went to Germany for a ``two week visit''. Ten days later, I received
the enclosed letter, telling me our marriage was over. I called the
State Department, learned about the Hague Convention, filled out the
petition in English and German, and filed the petition in July 1996.
The first court in Germany ordered that Julia be returned to the
United States. My wife appealed, and offered her mother's testimony to
say I had given permission for her to keep Julia in Germany because the
mother had overheard an argument in which I allegedly was told my wife
wanted a divorce, and I told her to take the baby and her things and go
to Germany. This was a total fabrication. There was never any such
discussion--never any talk about divorce, separation, or child custody.
In fact, my wife abandoned almost everything she owned, including her
childhood photos and many other personal effects. Although I appeared
in that court and told them this was a complete lie, they said they
believed my wife's mother, and overturned the lower court's order. I
note that even if there had been such an argument, the case law, which
was provided to the German court, does not support this defense to
return, and the decision is contrary to the spirit and intent of the
Hague Convention.
Since the upper court overturned the return order, I have been to
court again on one visit, along with my mother and father and two of my
siblings, and also to a counseling/mediation on another occasion in an
effort to see my daughter. I have received only resistance from the
court. My ex-wife has told me that she is living with another man and
my daughter is calling him `papa', so that she does not want to
``disturb'' my daughter with my presence, or my telling her I am her
father. As you might imagine, I am entirely distressed with this
situation, and I do not intend to allow it. To date, I have worked
entirely within the law, dealing with the State Department, and paying
nearly $50,000.00 since 1996 in attorney fees, travel expenses, and
other associated costs to reunite my daughter with myself and the rest
of her family. At this point, I firmly believe I would have been much
more successful hiring someone to re-abduct my child. I relied
completely upon the law, and now I know it was a mistake.
As you will see from the enclosed summaries of cases dealing with
Germany from 1990-1993, that country's courts consider the treaty to be
only advisory. The German courts regularly decide cases ``in the best
interest of the child'' (staying with the mother), with complete
disregard for the child's interest in knowing the other parent. You
will also find a copy of an article from the London Times describing
Germany as the ``worst offender'' non-compliance with Hague cases.
If you will force the issue with the State Department, they will
admit that out of about 90 cases, only about 35 were returned through
1996. I am confident the same dismal track record will prove true from
1996 to present. The lower courts, ``Amtsgericht'' sometimes appear to
follow the law, as in my case. The problem is that the Germans will
waive these decisions in your face to prove they follow the law, all
the time knowing that the cases are appealed and overturned at the OLG.
It is a well coordinated fraud. If they do not intend to comply with
the treaty, why do we recognize them as signatories?
As for my case, I am going to Germany for what I consider the
``last straw'' with their courts in September 1998. I found three years
of letters faxed to my wife by her mother, all in German, in which Frau
Breitbach brags about her tax evasion, social welfare fraud, and other
deceitful things. She even lied in what she describes as her ``sad
voice'' just days after my wife and I moved to D.C., that my wife and I
had marital problems, and my wife had returned to Germany, so that she
needed to be ``registered'' for social welfare purposes. Meanwhile, we
were in the midst of purchasing a home in Washington. I intend to ask
the Court to reverse their decision, which was based wholly upon the
testimony of a practiced liar and fraud.
I have provided a complete copy of these letters to my
Representative, Tillie Fowler, as well as to our Ambassador to Germany,
Mr. Kornblum. I realize I must present these letters to the court, and
I fully intend to do so in September, but I do not expect relief from
the German courts. I am hoping that the State Department will provide
these letters to the German authorities who oversee Hague Convention
compliance, to show them that my child has been literally kidnaped, and
kept from me for over two years. I would also like to offer to help you
in any way I possibly can to ensure compliance with the Hague
Convention in Germany and other countries as well. I have been in
contact with many other devastated parents, several of whom have
children who were taken to Germany and have suffered a similar
experience to mine.
My grandfather served in the Army in WWII. He was a doctor, and was
a prisoner of war in Japan for several years. He valued his citizenship
in the United States very much. My father retired as a Brigadier
General after 37 years in the Florida National Guard. He continues to
practice law in a civilian firm in Jacksonville. My brother is a
Captain in the Florida National Guard. He was deployed for Hurricane
Andrew, and he recently deployed for the wildfires we experienced in
Florida. He is an environmental engineer in his civilian employment,
and has been educated at Vanderbilt and Georgia Tech. My sisters were
educated at Tulane and Southern Methodist University. One is an
Architect, the other works in Public Relations. I attended the
University of Florida and Florida State University Law School. I am now
a Captain, Judge Advocate in the Florida National Guard, and I am
promotable to Major. However, because of the significant time I have
been required to spend in Germany, I have found it necessary to resign
from the National Guard and enter the Army Reserve, because I cannot
take an additional two weeks off from my civilian law practice to
attend annual training. I have worked for a Chicago Law firm in their
Jacksonville, Florida office since I left D.C.
My mother raised four children, educated them, and loves my
daughter as her first grandchild. She is tortured by a complete lack of
information about my daughter, and wakes up in the night to write
letters on her computer to save and give to my daughter. My parents are
now in their sixty's. They expected to live a peaceful, contented life.
You might expect such a glued together outfit would be able to resolve
the problem of my daughter's abduction. Instead, the law has failed us.
Our government has been unable to offer any resolution. We have never
felt so powerless.
I entreat you sir, please do not allow our State Department to
compromise on this issue. For a government like Germany to scoff at an
agreement they entered into should be seen as a slap in the face. This
is something to be expected from third world countries, and we expect
to have to deal with them as such. We must however, demand compliance
from Germany. That country relies upon us for protection and trade. We
should be able to expect better treatment of our citizens--Julia is
both American and German, in spite of the German's claim that she is a
German National. If you desire any further information from me, or if I
can in any way otherwise assist you, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Very truly yours,
James C. Rinaman, III.
______
Walter Paul Benda,
Max Meadows, Virginia,
September 27, 1998.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, D.C. 20510-6225
Dear Senator Helms: My family and I were greatly excited to receive
your September 21 letter advising us of the special hearing of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee on October 1 regarding international
child abduction. Being victims of this, we have felt extremely
frustrated by the indifference shown by our government, as well as
foreign governments, about this problem. We are deeply appreciative
that someone of your stature finally has the courage and compassion to
publicly address this problem.
I apologize in advance that much of my letter sounds negative, but
please understand that I and my family have been emotionally and
financially drained by the abduction of my two American born daughters,
Mari and Ema, for over 3 years now. We have had no direct contact with
them whatsoever since the day they were abducted. We still do not know
their whereabouts, even though my wife, Yoko Mizuno Benda, was indicted
for international parental kidnapping over 2 years ago, and supposedly
is being searched for by the FBI, Interpol, and our State Department.
Here is a quick round-down of my experiences:
1.) Japanese Police: I have personally gone, usually with my own
paid interpreter, to various Japanese police departments in Tokyo and
Chiba about half a dozen times during the past 3 years. Each of these
experiences has been most unpleasant, and there has never been any
concrete help of any kind offered. They have ridiculed me, ignored
factual evidence I have presented to them, spoken behind my back with
my interpreter (trying to get her to just make me leave), and basically
been rude and uncooperative. From my experience, the Japanese police
are lazy, insensitive, ignorant, and racist. They will not lift a
finger to help foreigners in these kinds of cases.
2.) Japanese courts: I been involved in Japanese court proceedings
in family court, district court, high court, and in the very near
future, I will be pleading my case before the Japanese Supreme Court.
From my experiences, these courts do not follow standard legal
procedures that would be expected in the U.S. court system. For
example, despite the fact that I was properly communicating with the
Japanese family court, keeping them informed of my whereabouts, they
never acknowledged any of my communications, and did not keep me
notified of hearings that were scheduled. As a consequence, my wife's
Japanese attorney rammed my case through family court without me being
given any opportunities for mediation which are guaranteed under
Japanese law before a case can be heard in district court. I definitely
feel I received discriminatory treatment from the family court because
I was a foreigner and they felt they could circumvent my legal rights
without me being able to do anything about it.
Many legal irregularities also occurred at the district court
level. At the first hearing, for which I had to take off over one week
from work, and spend lots of my personal funds to travel to Japan, my
wife and her attorney showed up one hour late. The judge said nothing
about this, and let them present their side during the remaining 30
minutes, without giving my Japanese lawyer an opportunity to say
anything. When my Japanese lawyer suddenly resigned 2 weeks before the
next hearing, the judge refused to reschedule the hearing, even though
I made an official written request in Japanese and was assured by
Japanese attorneys that normally a hearing would be rescheduled when a
lawyer suddenly resigned like this. Because of the lack of time, I was
unable to find a qualified Japanese attorney willing to take on my
case, and ended up having to represent myself in Japanese district
court. Throughout this whole case I have presented exhaustive evidence
(including dozens of documents, photos, tape recordings, videotapes,
affidavits signed by 25 friends of my daughters, etc.), which has been
brushed aside by all the judges and officials who are responsible for
determining these cases. Japanese judges have made custody rulings
regarding my children without once having seen them or even
indepndently verifying that they are attending school or are even
physically present in Japan.
3.) Japanese Bureaucracy: I have visited all the Japanese
bureaucracies that I can think of, that might be able to lend me
assistance in locating my daughters, or making some kind of progress in
resolving this matter. I have gone to the city office, where my wife
and daughters are fraudulently registered (with my daughters' names
falsified), and filed a report that their address is fraudulent. This
was to be investigated, but it has been almost one year now since I
filed the report and nothing has happened. I have met with bureaucrats
of the educational system, and they have told me there is no national
computer database for locating my children. They also said that even if
they had knowledge of my children, they would not share it with me
because of the children's privacy rights. I have met with an official
in the Japanese National Health Insurance Agency, to obtain any health
records they would have about my children, and he refused to cooperate
in any way, again citing the children's privacy rights. I have met with
officials at the Japanese Embassy in Washington, as well as at the
Japanese Delegation to the United Nations in New York, and despite
their assurances they would try to help, they have done nothing.
4.) U.S. Embassy in Tokyo and the U.S. State Department: Their
attitudes and lack of cooperation have sometimes been even worse than
that of the Japanese officials I have dealt with. Despite numerous
phone calls and letters to Ambassador Mondale, requesting a 5 or 10
minute meeting with myself and another American father whose children
had been abducted in Japan, I never received any sort of response from
Ambassador Mondale whatsoever. Members of my family also wrote letters
to him, and he never even had the courtesy to reply. His total
indifference to this problem was reflected throughout the U.S. Embassy
in Tokyo. During one of my frequent visits to the Embassy, I was
brought into the office of the Consul General, Mr. Wayne Griffith.
Before I had barely said a word, he began to lecture me in a very
arrogant fashion that he had a staff of Embassy Marines at his
disposal, ready to throw me out of the Embassy if I was disruptive in
any way. He was totally ignorant about the most basic aspects of
international parental kidnapping. He angrily argued with me when I
read him excerpts from a NCMEC publication which cited obligations the
U.S. Embassy has in these cases. I found Mr. Griffith's assistant,
Margaret Uyehara, whom he assigned to deal with me, to also be very
ignorant and inexperienced with these cases. She was also very arrogant
and very rude. I have a tape recording of a phone conversation I had
with her where she slammed the phone in my face, after saying she was
too busy to deal with me because they were having a snow storm in
Tokyo.
Just like Ambassador Mondale, Secretary of State Madelyn Albright
also has never dignified my family or me with a response to any of the
numerous letters we have written her. Her attitude is also reflected in
the Office of Children's Issues in the State Department in Washington.
They do practically no follow-up whatsoever with parents, and rarely
bother to return phone calls or faxes. I still have evidence of all the
phone calls and faxes I have made to the Office of Children's Issues
which were ignored and never returned. When they do speak to parents,
it is very condescending and designed to deflate parents' hopes of ever
seeing their children again.
5.) U.S. Police: The local police in Virginia are basically
ignorant about international kidnapping laws, and were not of any help.
The FBI office in Roanoke, however, has been helpful, at least in
cooperating with the indictment of my wife for international parental
kidnapping. However, they do not seem to have any interest in
aggressively pursuing this case with Japanese Interpol. Nothing has
happened even though my wife was indicted over 2 years ago.
6.) Virginia Courts: I pursued this case all the way up to the
appeals court level in Virginia, and it was always thrown out. My wife
and I both attended college in Virginia, we both held Virginia drivers
licenses, my wife had signed a legal certificate in Virginia that she
was a Virginia resident, and she listed a Virginia address with INS
while we were temporarily residing in Japan, but the Virginia courts
ignored all this and felt there was no significant connection to
Virginia. Basically the Virginia judges did not want to get entangled
in an international case, and took the easy way out by pushing it away.
7.) National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC):
Even though my children are missing, and are being psychologically, if
not physically, exploited, for the first 3 years NCMEC has refused to
register them in their system, because I did not have a U.S. custody
order. It has pretty much been a ``Catch-22'' situation for me, because
I could not get U.S. courts to hear my case, and so it's been
impossible to get a custody order in the U.S. NCMEC needs to recognize
that international cases are different from domestic cases, and adapt
accordingly.
As you can see, all the various systems that are supposed to help
parents in these kinds of cases are largely ineffective. My experiences
are not unique. Through an organization that I co-founded in Japan,
called Children's Rights Council-Japan, I have come across dozens of
cases like mine in Japan, and in practically all these cases the left
behind parents have been unsuccessful in maintaining regular personal
relations and direct contacts with their children, as guaranteed by the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Japan
ratified in its entirety on April 22, 1994. In my own case over a dozen
articles of this convention have been violated by Japan, including my
children's rights to both of their parents, both of their extended
families, both of their nationalities, both their religions, as well as
the right to their native language, English.
What do I recommend that the Committee on Foreign Relations do,
that would effectively address this problem of international parental
kidnapping?
As a member of the United Nations, I think the U.S. should be
adamant that countries which sign a United Nations treaty, do so with
sincerity. If a country does not sign a treaty in sincerity, then it
should be forced to withdraw from it. Accordingly, I respectfully ask
your committee to introduce a resolution in the United States Senate
calling on Japan, as well as other countries that have signed the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty and are not
abiding by it, to withdraw from it. Furthermore, I believe Japan's
application to become a member of the U.N. Security Council should be
denied. I really think this would have an immediate impact upon Japan
to clean up its act. No country wants to have an international
reputation for violating children's rights.
When I moved to Japan in November of 1992 with my wife and
children, I assumed I was moving to a civilized country which respected
children's rights like they are respected in the United States. I now
know that Japan, and many other countries as well, have no respect for
children's rights as defined in the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child treaty. These countries are sanctuaries for child
abductors, and they should be forced to withdraw from the treaty. At
least this would give fair warning to Americans thinking of marrying
citizens of those countries, or moving to those countries with their
American born children.
Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to present my
experiences and views.
Sincerely,
Walter Benda.
______
synopsis of barlow case
(1) Mark William Barlow and Ruth Bruegger Barlow were married to
each other on March 5, 1988 in Clemmons, North Carolina, United States,
and lived together as husband and wife until May 9, 1991. Three
children were born of the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Barlow: Dwight
Ernest Barlow, born September 2, 1988; Jeffrey Daniel Barlow, born
December 6, 1989; and Brian Roger Barlow, born November 20, 1990.
(2) In January, 1991, shortly after the birth of their third son in
November, 1990, Mrs. Barlow traveled with the three children to
Switzerland for a visit with her family. Mrs. Barlow was to return
approximately five weeks later. However, she did not return until ten
weeks later and brought both of her parents with her. Upon Mrs.
Barlow's return, her father, Mr. Ernest Bruegger, a retired district
court judge in Olten-Gosgen, Switzerland, confronted Mr. Barlow with a
demand that his daughter and grandchildren reside in Switzerland. Due
to the unhappiness of Mrs. Barlow, Mr. Barlow agreed to move to
Switzerland. Mr. and Mrs. Barlow rented their home in Guilford County,
North Carolina, sold all of their furniture, furnishings, and other
belongings, and Mr. Barlow quit his employment in anticipation of the
move to Switzerland. Shortly before their departure, Mrs. Barlow
claimed that she and the children needed to go to Switzerland a week
before Mr. Barlow in order to obtain work permits and other documents
for him. Mrs. Barlow left North Carolina with the three children on May
9, 1991.
(3) on May 13, 1991, on the first business day after returning to
Switzerland, Mrs. Barlow filed in Olten-Gosgen, Switzerland, a
temporary petition for divorce, custody, child support, maintenance for
herself, and sought to bar Mr. Barlow from having visitation with the
three minor children. Mrs. Barlow was represented by her cousin, Dr.
Arthur Haefliger.
(4) On May 14, 1991, three days before Mr. Barlow was to depart for
Switzerland, Mrs. Barlow informed him by telephone that she had filed
for divorce in Switzerland and intended to keep the children there with
her.
(5) On May 15, 1991, Dr. Laemnli, a District Court Judge in Olten-
Gosgen, granted Mrs. Barlow's request for temporary custody and set a
hearing for support for May 29, 1991.
(6) On May 16, 1991, Mr. Barlow filed a complaint for custody of
the minor children in Guilford County, North Carolina. At the same time
Mr. Barlow filed an Application for Assistance under the Hague
Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
(hereinafter Hague Convention). On said date, Mr. Barlow received an
emergency custody order from the District Court in Guilford County
awarding him temporary custody of the three children.
(7) On May 27, 1991, the Swiss Central Authority formally contacted
the District Court in Olten-Gosgen requesting the return of the three
children to the United States.
(8) On June 3, 1991, Mr. Barlow requested the return of the three
children to the United States in a motion before the District Court in
Olten-Gosgen.
(9) On June 13, 1991, the District Court in Olten-Gosgen held a
hearing regarding Mrs. Barlow's request for divorce, temporary support
and temporary custody. Mr. Barlow was not present although he was
represented by counsel. The Court, over the objections of Mr. Barlow's
counsel, granted Mrs. Barlow temporary custody of the minor children
and established support for the minor children and Mrs. Barlow.
(10) On June 24, 1991, Mr. Barlow appealed the order of June 13,
1991, of the District Court of Olten-Gosgen to the Supreme Court of the
Canton of Solothurn as a violation of Article 16 of the Hague
Convention.
(11) On July 8, 1991, a hearing was held in the District Court in
Olten-Gosgen regarding the return of the minor children under the Hague
Convention. The District Court refused to order the return of the
children, although the Court found that Mrs. Barlow's actions were
illegal. The Court denied the request for return of the children to the
United States finding that the children would be harmed by separating
them from Mrs. Barlow because she did not want to return to the United
States.
(12) On August 12, 1991, the Supreme Court of the Canton of
Solothurn reversed the June 13, 1991, decision of the District Court in
Olten-Gosgen finding that the District Court had violated Article 16 of
the Hague Convention in determining the custody of the minor children
when a Hague application was pending.
(13) on August 20, 1991, Mr. Barlow appealed the July 8, 1991,
decision of the District Court in Olten-Gosgen for its refusal to order
the return of the children to the United States to the Supreme Court of
the Canton of Solothurn. Mr. Barlow appealed on the grounds that Mrs.
Barlow's refusal to return to the United States did not create an
intolerable situation for the children to prevent their return to the
United States and Mrs. Barlow should not be able to create the
situation and benefit from her own bad conduct.
(14) On September 19, 1991, the Supreme Court of the Canton of
Solothurn reversed the July 8, 1991, decision of the District Court of
Olten-Gosgen and ordered the minor children to be returned to
Kernersville, North Carolina, within 30 days after the order takes
legal effect or Mr. Barlow may get the children within 30 days after
the order takes legal effect.
(15) On October 24, 1991, Dr. Laemmli, the District Court Judge in
Olten-Gosger who had previously granted temporary custody of the
children to Mrs. Barlow and had been reversed by the Supreme Court of
the Canton of Solothurn, again ordered custody of the children to Mrs.
Barlow during the duration of the divorce proceedings.
(16) On October 29, 1991, Mr. Barlow petitioned the Administrative
Clerk of the District Court in Olten-Gosgen for execution of the order
of the Supreme Court of the Canton of Solothurn in which the children
were ordered to be returned to Kernersville, North Carolina.
(17) On November 5, 1991, Mrs. Barlow filed a petition for divorce
and requested a divorce, custody, spousal support, child support and
division of marital property.
(18) On November 15, 1991, Dr. Laemmli, the District Court Judge in
Olten-Gosgen, wrote to the Supreme Court of the Canton of Solothurn.
The Judge wrote that it was impossible not to decide about custody of
the children because there needed to be an execution proceeding and
considerable time may elapse before the children are returned.
(19) On November 25, 1991, Mrs. Barlow petitioned the Supreme Court
of the Canton of Solothurn for a rehearing of the order for the return
of the children to Kernersville, North Carolina. Mrs. Barlow offered a
report from the Department of Social Services in Switzerland written on
October 21, 1991, a report of an investigator regarding Mr. Barlow's
conviction for avoiding arrest in 1985 prior to the marriage) and two
affidavits from friends. All of the documents were not previously
before the Court.
(20) On November 29, 1991, the Administrative Clerk of the District
Court of Olten-Gosgen suspended the execution of the September 19,
1991, Order until the Supreme Court of the Canton of Solothurn decided
if it would grant the rehearing requested by Mrs. Barlow.
(21) On December 17, 1991, the Supreme Court of the Canton of
Solothurn suspended execution of its order of September 19, 1991, until
it decided on Mrs. Barlow's petition for rehearing.
(22) On January 17, 1992, the Supreme Court of the Canton of
Solothurn made its own motion not to have live witnesses at the hearing
regarding the petition for rehearing unless the parties replied by
January 24, 1992.
(23) On January 24, 1992, Mrs. Barlow objected to not having live
witnesses at the hearing regarding her petition for rehearing and
requested that the Court hear the live testimony of her father, Mr.
Bruegger.
(24) On January 31, 1992, Mr. Barlow's counsel sent a letter to
Supreme Court of the Canton of Solothurn objecting to any live
testimony, including the testimony of Mr. Bruegger.
(25) On February 5, 1992, Mr. Barlow filed a complaint and
counterclaim in the divorce proceedings.
(26) On March 16, 1992, there was a hearing before the Supreme
Court of the Canton of Solothurn regarding Mrs. Barlow's petition for
rehearing. Mr. and Mrs. Barlow were present as well as Mrs. Barlow's
father, Mr. Bruegger and Mr. Barlow's mother, Mrs. Lightcap.
(27) On March 24, 1992, the Supreme Court of the Canton of
Solothurn denied Mrs. Barlow's petition for a rehearing finding that
there was no new evidence to change its September 19, 1991, decision.
The September 19, 1991, decision was reinstated.
(28) On March 26, 1992, Mr. Barlow requested that the
Administrative Clerk of the District Court of Olten-Gosgen execute on
the September 19, 1991, order of the Supreme Court of the Canton of
Solothurn.
(29) On March 30, 1992, the Supreme Court of the Canton of
Solothurn reversed the portion of the October 24, 1991, order of Dr.
Laemmli granting Mrs. Barlow custody of the children during the
duration of the divorce proceedings.
(30) On April 1, 1992, the Administrative Clerk of the District
Court in Olten-Gosgen lifted the suspension of the execution proceeding
and set a hearing for April 9, 1992.
(31) On April 8, 1992, Mrs. Barlow petitioned the Administrative
Clerk of the District Court of Olten-Gosgen to suspend the execution
order until the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland heard her
petition.
(32) On April 10, 1992, Mrs. Barlow appealed the decision of March
24, 1992, of the Supreme Court of the Canton of Solothurn to the
Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland.
(33) On April 14, 1992, the Supreme Court of the Canton of
Solothurn refused to suspend the proceedings pending Mrs. Barlow's
appeal to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland.
(34) On April 16, 1992, the Administrative Clerk of the District
Court of Olten-Gosgen ordered that the September 19, 1991, order from
the Supreme Court of the Canton of Solothurn be enforced. The
Administrative Clerk ordered that if Mrs. Barlow refused to obey, she
could receive a 5000 franc fine, imprisonment of three months, or both.
The Administrative Clerk refused to use force to get the children
returned to the United States.
(35) On April 29, 1992, Mr. Barlow appealed to the Administrative
Supreme Court of the Canton of Solothurn regarding the decision of the
Administrative Clerk of the District Court in Olten-Gosgen to impose
sanctions but not use force.
(36) On May 1, 1992, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Canton
of Solothurn refused to stay the order for the return of the children
pending Mrs. Barlow's appeal to the Federal Supreme Court of
Switzerland.
(37) On June 11, 1992, the Supreme Administrative Court of Canton
of Solothurn denied Mrs. Barlow's request for additional time and gave
Mrs. Barlow until June 22, 1992, to take a position with respect to Mr.
Barlow's appeal from the decision of the Administrative Clerk of the
District Court of Olten-Gosgen regarding the use of force.
(38) On July 10, 1992, the Supreme Administrative Court of the
Canton of Solothurn suspended the execution proceedings until the
Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland had decided Mrs. Barlow's appeal
from the March 24, 1992, decision refusing the rehearing and ordering
the reinstatement of the September 19, 1991, decision.
(39) On July 10, 1992, the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland
suspended all efforts to execute the judgment of the Supreme Court of
the Canton of Solothurn until the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland
had decided the matter.
(40) On August 20, 1992, the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland
denied Mrs. Barlow's appeal from the March 24, 1992, Order of the
Supreme Court of the Canton of Solothurn. Mr. Barlow requested that the
Supreme Administrative Court of the Canton of Solothurn order the
Administrative Clerk of the District Court of Olten-Gosgen to proceed
with the order of execution and lift the suspensions that had been
previously entered.
(41) On November 6, 1992, the Supreme Administrative Court of the
Canton of Solothurn ordered that force be used if Mrs. Barlow did not
obey the order to return the children to the United States. Mrs. Barlow
was given until November 28, 1992, to obey the Court's order.
(42) On November 21, 1992, Mrs. Barlow appealed to the European
Court on Human rights in Straussburg, France, claiming a violation of
her human rights in having the courts of Switzerland order the children
returned to the United States.
(43) On November 26, 1992, Mr. Barlow requested the suspension of
the children's passports.
(44) On November 27, 1992, the Administrative Clerk of the District
Court of Olten-Gosgen refused to suspend the children's passports since
Mrs. Barlow might comply with the Court's order on November 28, 1992,
and give the children up.
(45) On December 2, 1992, the Administrative Clerk of the District
Court of Olten-Gosgen ordered suspension of the children's passports
until Mrs. Barlow obeys.
(46) On December 3, 1992, the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland
ruled that Mrs. Barlow's appeal to the European Court on Human Rights
in Straussburg, France, would have no effect on the order of the
execution.
(47) On December 10, 1992, the Administrative Clerk wrote to the
Swiss Central Authority allowing Mr. Barlow to pick up the children in
Switzerland provided that:
(a) Mr. Barlow is accompanied by someone educated in caring
for small children who has a command of the Swiss German
language;
(b) that someone with the command of the Swiss German
language accompany the children in the United States until the
children are accustomed to their new circumstances and can
represent their interests in court; and
(c) that if Mrs. Barlow desires to travel to the United
States, that Mrs. Barlow will have the protection of the United
States Central Authority during her stay.
(48) On December 16, 1992, the Swiss Central Authority wrote to the
Administrative Clerk of the District Court of Olten-Gosgen stating that
the demands of the Administrative Clerk were outrageous and that Mrs.
Barlow had brought the situation on herself.
(49) On December 21, 1992, Mrs. Barlow was ordered to surrender the
passports of the children on or before December 24, 1992, at 11:00 a.m.
or the police would seize them.
(50) On January 5, 1993, the Administrative Clerk of the District
Court of Olten-Gosgen, Switzerland informed Mr. Barlow's attorney that
a secret police action would take place on January 12, 1993 at
approximately 8:00 a.m. whereby the three children would be taken by
the police and a social worker from the home of Mrs. Barlow and her
parents. The children were to be taken to a children's home in Luzerne,
Switzerland and reunited with Mr. Barlow at the children's home. The
Administrative Clerk of the District Court of Olten-Gosgen revealed
that Mrs. Barlow's father, Mr. Bruegger, had made threats against him
and Mr. Barlow's attorneys.
(51) On January 11, 1993, Mr. Barlow and his mother met with the
Administrative Clerk of the District Court of Olten-Gosgen,
Switzerland, the social worker who had written a report about Mrs.
Barlow and the Barlow children in October, 1991, and a social worker
from the children's home in Luzerne. Said officials attempted to
dissuade Mr. Barlow from returning to the United States with his
children and queried if Mr. Barlow would take responsibility for the
physical injury to his children if Mrs. Barlow's father should become
violent.
(52) On January 12, 1993, the Olten police went to the home of Mrs.
Barlow's parents (Mrs. Barlow and the children have stayed in the
Bruegger home since May, 1991.) The entire family had left sometime
before the arrival of the police. The neighbors were questioned and no
one claimed to know the whereabouts of the family. One neighbor had
been left a key to the home but claimed to know nothing about the
location of the family. A search for the family was activated and
national and international warrants were in the process of being issued
for the arrest of Mrs. Barlow and her parents. The whereabouts of Mrs.
Barlow and her parents became known during this time and the warrants
were canceled.
(53) On January 13, 1993, a meeting was held. In attendance were
authorities from the Swiss Central Authority, the Administrative Clerk
of the District Court of Olten-Gosgen, a representative from the
Department of Justice of the Canton of Solothurn, and the attorneys for
Mr. Barlow and Mrs. Barlow. Mrs. Barlow's attorney revealed that he
knew the location of Mrs. Barlow, her parents and the children but
would not reveal it. Mrs. Barlow's attorney was given until January 14,
1993, to reveal the location of the children. Mrs. Barlow's attorney
was informed that Mrs. Barlow must decide by January 15, 1993, if she
will return to the United States or the children will be taken from
her.
(54) On January 14, 1993, the Administrative Clerk of the District
Court of Olten-Gosgen informed Mrs. Barlow's attorney that Mrs. Barlow
must decide by 12:00 noon on January 15, 1993, if she will return to
the United States. If Mrs. Barlow agrees to return, she must leave no
later than the evening of January 19, 1993. If Mrs. Barlow refuses to
return or refuses to respond, then the police will take the children on
January 19, 1993, for Mr. Barlow to return with them to the United
States. The Administrative Clerk of the District Court of Olten-Gosgen
knows the location of the family. He has refused to disclose the
location to Mr. Barlow's attorney and has refused to order police
surveillance believing that Mrs. Barlow will not flee with the
children. However, all international airports and border officials have
been alerted to the situation. Mrs. Barlow has hired an attorney from
the United States who is in Switzerland and will be meeting with her on
January 15, 1993.
(55) On January 15, 1993, Mrs. Barlow agreed to return to the
United States no later than January 20, l993. She was ordered to
disclose her itinerary for her return as soon as she knew it.
(56) On January 15, 1993, after agreeing to return to the United
States on or before January 20, 1993, Mrs. Barlow and two children were
admitted to the Villain Park in Rothrist, in the Canton of Aargau, a
private hospital. Attached hereto as Exhibits A & B are certified
copies of the doctor's certificate dated January 15, 1993, regarding
the psychological state of Mrs. Barlow and Dwight Barlow. On said date
Mr. Hug expressed concern to plaintiff's attorney, Mr. Steinegger that
Mrs. Barlow and others may commit ``collective suicide.'' Mr.
Steinegger requested police intervention and the presence of a social
worker in the home to monitor the possible suicide-homicide of the
Barlow-Bruegger family. The request was denied by Mr. Hug.
(57) On January 18, 1993, Mrs. Barlow indicated that there could be
problems if she leaves for the United States. The Swiss Central
Authority gave its assurance that the problems would be immediately
resolved in cooperation with the Embassy of the United States in Berne.
Mr. Brian Flora, Consul General of the United States confirmed with the
Swiss Central Authority that Mrs. Barlow would be given a 6 month visa
for the United States and that said visa could be prolonged if
necessary.
(58) On January 19, 1993, Mrs. Heidi Koch informed Mr. Hug, the
Administrative Clerk of the District Court of Olten-Gosgen, that she
represented the interests of Mrs. Barlow and the children. She sent the
Exhibits A & B to Mr. Hug. On January 19, 1993, Mr. Haefliger withdrew
as Mrs. Barlow's attorney.
(59) On January 19, 1993, Mrs. Koch announced that Mrs. Barlow and
two of the children were in a hospital. Mr. Hug confirmed this
information. The Swiss Central Authority insisted that Mr. Hug obtain
an independent medical check-up of the children and to inform the
police of the status of the situation in the Canton of Solothurn and
Aargau.
(60) On January 20, 1993 the authorities involved in obtaining the
transfer of the children ascertained that the transfer of the children
to the United States would not take place. Mr. Hug confirmed that he
would not have the order executed so long as there were medical reasons
against it.
(61) On January 20, 1993 Mr. Hug requested a meeting of authorities
under the auspices of the Federal Office of Justice with the
participation of plaintiff and defendant for January 22, 1993. Mr.
Keller, the Director of the Federal Office of Justice consented to lead
the meeting.
(62) On January 21, 1993, Mr. Hug arranged a meeting for January
22, 1993, to discuss the Barlow matter. Mr. Hug, Dr. Keller, Mrs.
Jametti-Greiner, Mr. Barlow and his attorney, Dr. Steinegger, Mrs.
Barlow and her attorney were to attend. Although Mr. Hug wrote a
strongly worded letter to Mrs. Koch, he stated that the meeting would
be canceled if Mrs. Koch and Mrs. Barlow did not attend.
(63) On January 21, 1993, Mr. Hug was informed by defendant's
counsel, Mrs. Koch, that Mrs. Koch was not in a position to attend the
January 22, 1993 meeting.
(64) On January 22, 1993, Mr. Hug informed the Swiss Central
Authority that a police action was planned for January 25, 1993 to take
the children away and to use physical force if necessary. Mr. Hug again
expressed concern about a ``collective suicide.'' Mr. Hug requested and
obtained police surveillance of the home where defendant and the
children were staying.
(65) On January 25, 1993, the police and three social workers took
the three Barlow children from the home of Mrs. Barlow's parents where
Mrs. Barlow and the children had been staying and brought them to Mr.
Barlow in Bern, Switzerland. The children were taken in their pajamas
and shoes. Mrs. Barlow did not send any clothing, toys, blankets or any
other items with the children. After being examined by a medical
doctor, the children were permitted to leave the country with Mr.
Barlow and his mother. The children arrived in the United States at
8:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 26, 1993. They are currently staying with
Mr. Barlow, his mother, Mr. Barlow's brother and sister-in-law, and
their two children (ages three and four) while Mr. Barlow sets up house
for himself and his children.
The defendant wrongfully abducted the children and had taken every
step possible to avoid returning the children to the jurisdiction of
North Carolina. Defendant has asserted that the children would be
harmed if separated from her. However, defendant chose not to return
with the children to the United States. Defendant checked herself and
two of the children into a private hospital due to the extreme
psychological stress she was under. The psychological stability of the
plaintiff and defendant and other psychological factors need to be
addressed and would be useful in the custody proceeding.
______
27 December 1994.
Office of Children's Issues, Bureau of Consular Affairs,
United States Department of State, Washington, DC.
Dear Colleague: First of all, let me thank you for your cooperation
during this year which has been really satisfying. I hope sincerely
that we might continue in 1995 on the same basis.
Allow me to draw your attention to a case on child custody pending
before an American court. The Swiss Central authority has some concerns
about the lawsuit in re Barlow v. Brugger, where after a divorce
pronounced in Switzerland and a decree stating the return of the
abducted children to the United States--the custody of the children and
the access for a right to visit is pending before a court of North
Carolina.
As you may remember, in the present case, the Swiss tribunals
decided the return of the three Barlow children in last instance after
a very long procedure, avoiding nevertheless any relevance to the final
attribution of the parental authority, this being considered, after a
decision in favour of a return of the children to the United States, as
being of the resort of the U.S. Courts.
In the current procedure before the American court it has now to be
decided to whom and under which conditions the parental custody will be
attributed. As we were informed through our representation in Atlanta,
there might be some possibility that the custody over the three little
boys will be attributed to the mother, but that she will have to stay
within the jurisdiction of that court (or at least within the United
States) in order to give the father the opportunity to keep some
contacts with his children. The Swiss Central Authority feels the need
to underline that such a decision could create an important precedent.
In the present case, the Swiss tribunals--in conformity with the Hague
Convention--have ordered the return of the children to the USA although
the later--owing to the many appeals lodged by Mrs. Barlow against the
return--have already long been living in Switzerland.
By ordering the compulsory enforcement of the return decree the
Swiss authorities have shown more than clearly that they consider the
correct implementation of the convention requirements as having
absolute priority.
Without interfering in the American procedure, we would like to
stress the point that there are no objective reasons for any
restrictions in the custody as far as the mother is concerned. Should
the American tribunals nevertheless come to the conclusion that in the
actual lawsuit the children should not be entrusted to the mother, or
that she must necessarily exercise her rights of custody in the USA
because otherwise the father and the children won't be able to get in
contact with each other, this would certainly be interpreted in
Switzerland as a rejection of the system set up by the Hague
Convention. It would then hardly be conceivable that under similar
conditions a Swiss judge would again order the return of American
children. Such an attitude would be all the less understandable as the
Swiss authorities had even resorted to police power in order to ensure
the enforcement of the order for return and therefore scepticism about
in the manner in which the Hague Convention functions in no way seems
justified.
Taking into account the numerous cases between Switzerland and the
United States which have been settled in the spirit and in the respect
of the Hague Convention, the Swiss Central Authority would deeply
regret such a development. We thus encourage you to underline to the
court the mutual functioning of the Hague Convention between our two
states in order to preserve this fruitful cooperation.
Very truly yours,
Nicolette Rusca-Clerc,
Federal Office of Justice,
Central Authority in Matters of International Child Abduction.
______
Defendant's Exhibit 4
barlow/brugger
Return
The conditions which led to the compulsory enforcement of the order
for return of the children follow from the summary of the circumstances
which the Swiss Central authority sent the American Central authority
on 25 January 1993 (s. annex).
Indeed, it was necessary to resort to police power in order to
ensure the enforcement of the Order as the members of the Brugger
family and the mother of the children also resisted this order
physically.
The return was foreseen for January 21, 1993, at 9 o'clock in the
morning. I presume that the police chose that time of the day because
one could then assume that the children were already awake, dressed and
had had their breakfast, but that it would be too early in the day for
the children to have left the house together with their mother and/or
grandmother. In fact the children were already awake at that time, but
they were ``still in bed''. Besides the ``Oberamtmann'' Hug (the former
collaborator of M. Brugger), the Head of the Cantonal police and
several policemen of which some were women (constables or social
welfare workers?) as well as the Cantonal doctor took part in this
action, the doctor having rapidly ascertained whether the children were
in a state to be removed from their home. Upon his positive medical
diagnosis, the children were fetched out of the house despite the
violent verbal abuse and physical resistance of the Brugger parents and
of Mrs. Barlow-Brugger. At that moment the children were wearing
pajamas or trainers and slippers. One of the women who were
participating in the ``action'' quickly grabbed the clothes and jackets
which seemed adequate to them. I can't remember exactly anymore if all
the children really had jackets on.
The children were immediately brought to the Cantonal hospital,
where they were examined very thoroughly as to their state of health.
This time the check-up was made in order to find out if the children
would be able to travel to the USA. The children received a meal in the
hospital. After a positive diagnosis the children were driven to Bern
and there they were entrusted to their father.
Personal opinion: The people who participated in this return action
took very great pains indeed in order to ensure that the return of the
children take place in the most calm and civilized manner possible, but
the members of the Brugger family put up so many obstacles that this
was not possible. Had one entirely renounced ensuring the return by
physical coercion this would have meant that according to the events
occurring till now the judicially confirmed decrees of last instance
ordering the return of the children would not have been enforced.
Of course, in this ``inferno'' it is understandable that the
children were frightened. I then took care of one of the little boys
and I was able to reassure him on the whole; I could also observe the
same thing with the two other children.
Juridical considerations
In the present case, the Swiss tribunals decided the return of the
three Barlow children in last instance; an enforcement injunction
obtained by Mrs. Barlow according to which the return could only take
place if no coercion was resorted to, was rejected upon an appeal filed
by Mr. Barlow, so that the legal position was clear. The Solothurn
authorities let several months go by, before they enforced the judicial
decision. During that time the ``Oberamtmann'' tried several times--
however in vain--to bring the defeated party to comply voluntarily with
the judicial decision.
The Swiss Central Authority for matters of international child
abduction is not empowered to express an opinion about the functioning
of Swiss justice; that authority also does not officially comment on
(or criticize) any decision which is given in application of the Hague
Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction or of
the European Convention on custody decrees.
However, on the basis of the international Conventions the Swiss
Central authority must see to it that the necessary and adequate
measures are taken in order to ensure the safe return (ordered by the
tribunals) of the children. It can therefore not tolerate that orders
for return of children which have been given by Swiss Tribunals are not
enforced.
The precedent created by the Barlow/Brugger lawsuit
The current procedure creates an important precedent. In conformity
with the Hague Convention the Swiss tribunals have ordered the return
of the children to the USA--although the latter--owing to the many
appeals lodged by Mrs. Barlow against the return--have already long
been living in Switzerland. By ordering the compulsory enforcement of
the return decree the Swiss authorities have shown more than clearly
that they consider the correct implementation of the convention
requirements as having absolute priority. Should the American tribunals
come to the conclusion that in the actual lawsuit the children should
not be entrusted to the mother, or that she must necessarily exercise
her rights of custody in the USA, because otherwise the father and the
children won't be able to get in contact with each other, this would be
interpreted in Switzerland as a rejection of the system set up by the
Hague Convention. It would then hardly be conceivable that under
similar conditions a Swiss judge would again order the return of
American children. Such an attitude would be all the less
understandable as the Swiss authorities had even resorted to police
power in order to ensure the enforcement of the order of return and
therefore skepticism about the matter in which the Hague Convention
functions in no way seems justified.
______
Ty Cunningham,
Austin, TX .
September 30, 1998.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
United States Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations.
Dear Senator Helms: I understand you are going to chair a Senate
Foreign Relations Committee Meeting and Public Hearing on International
Child Abduction tomorrow, October 1, 1998 at 10:00 AM. Please enter my
story, following, into the official record.
I beseech you to speak on behalf of me and the other U.S. Citizen's
whose children have been kidnapped from American homes and parents
against U.S. Court Orders. Too often the countries these are taken to
are members of the United Nations and have signed the Hague Treaty, but
refuse to acknowledge U.S. Court rulings and refuse to help return the
kidnapped children back to America.
This is especially troubling to me because of the illegal abduction
of my U.S. American-born children to Brazil by their Brazilian National
mother.
Geneva and Felipe Cunningham were kidnapped to Goiania Brasil by
their non-custodial mother 16 months ago. This was the third time that
their mother kidnapped them, against U.S. court orders. I was awarded
sole custody by Travis County, Texas Courts in my July 1997 final
divorce decree. The Travis County District Attorney's Office has issued
a felony arrest warrant for their mother, Vilma Lopes de Silva
Cunningham.
Even though I have been awarded full custody, Vilma Lopes da Silva
Cunningham has filed a custody lawsuit petition through Letters of
Rogatory in Brazilian courts, which were processed by our very own U.S.
State Department, against me and my U.S. citizen children. My only
choices are: to answer the lawsuit (effectively overturning U.S. Court
jurisdiction) or to default in the Brazilian Court. The Brazilian
courts are not recognizing jurisdiction over U.S. citizens, and the
U.S. State Department is assisting Brazil in service of process against
me.
Again, I implore you and all of Congress to help in the return of
internationally abducted, U.S. citizen children to their homes in
America. Thank you for your sincere efforts.
Cordially,
Ty Cunningham.
______
summary of the abductions of mark larson's daughter, julia larson, from
the u.s. to sweden by her swedish mother
My Swedish ex-wife, Sofia Ohlander, has unlawfully abducted our
American-born daughter, Julia Larson, from the U.S. to Sweden 3 times.
When we got married in Utah in 1989, Sofia assured me that she was in
full agreement that we would live here in the U.S. and raise our family
here. Our daughter Julia was born in Utah a year later. Julia will turn
8 years old on August 13, 1998, and her mother has successfully
prevented us even from seeing each other since Julia was 3\1/2\ years
old.
The first abduction took place at the end of a family vacation in
Sweden during the Christmas/New Year holiday in 1990/1991. Sofia had
been quite depressed after Julia was born, and upon her insistence we
went on a visit to Sweden for the holidays to show Sofia's mother our
new baby. However, instead of returning with me to Utah at the end of
the visit, Sofia kidnapped Julia and went into hiding with her, and
Sofia's family threatened me with physical violence if I didn't leave
Sweden immediately. I contacted the Swedish police, but they said there
was nothing they could do to help me. As I found out later, this forced
retention of our daughter in Sweden was a violation by Sofia of the
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
After 5 months I had managed to re-establish contact with Sofia and
persuaded her to return with our daughter to the U.S. For the next 7
months we again lived together as a family in our Utah home. Then one
day, without my permission or foreknowledge, Sofia took Julia and
hopped on a plane with her to Sweden. This abduction was Sofia's second
violation of the Hague Convention.
Sofia cut off all contact with me for several months, and would
only communicate through her Swedish attorney, through whom she was
demanding a divorce and sole custody of Julia. I attempted to negotiate
a custody and visitation arrangement with her, but the only arrangement
she was willing to agree to was sole custody and child support for her,
with no visitation for me other than a vague provision that I could
come see Julia at Sofia's apartment in Sweden on the occasions when I
``happened to be in Sweden.'' After consulting with numerous attorneys,
law-enforcement officers, and government officials in both countries,
none of whom informed me about the Hague Convention, I finally came to
the understanding that the state of Utah--which is the only place our
family had ever lived and the only place Julia had ever lived with the
agreement of both of her parents--was the proper jurisdiction for the
divorce and custody case. I filed a divorce and custody suit in Utah,
and a few months later I went to Sweden and managed to retrieve Julia
and bring her back to Utah with me.
Two months later Sofia filed a Hague Convention case against me
(fully funded on her behalf by the Swedish government) in the federal
court in Utah, alleging that I had violated the Hague Convention by
``abducting'' Julia from Sweden to the U.S., and making no mention of
the facts that Julia was born in the U.S. and was abducted from our
family home in the U.S. by her mother and wrongfully held in Sweden,
and that I was actually returning Julia to the country from which she
had originally been abducted. Instead of serving me with notice of her
Hague Convention filing, Sofia's lawyer had the record of the filing
sealed and petitioned the court to issue an ex parte order (i.e. an
order made without giving me any prior notice or opportunity to be
heard) requiring any peace officer within the state of Utah to
immediately seize my daughter from my physical custody and temporarily
place her with Sofia pending the outcome of her Hague Convention case.
The order also set the case for a prompt hearing and ordered Sofia not
to remove Julia from the state of Utah. The alleged ``emergency''
falsely sworn to by Sofia as grounds for such an extreme ex parte
measure was that, if the court did not have my daughter immediately
removed from physical custody and turned over to Sofia without
affording me any advance notice or opportunity to be heard, my daughter
would somehow ``suffer some irreparable injury'' and/or ``be carried
out of the jurisdiction of the Court'' before the Hague Convention case
could be properly adjudicated.
Less than 48 hours after Sofia obtained physical possession of
Julia from me via the enforcement of the ex parte order which she had
fraudulently obtained from the court, she hopped on a plane and fled
with Julia to Sweden in willful, calculated violation of the order.
Sofia was greeted at the airport in Sweden by a large gathering of the
Swedish media, where she bragged about how she managed to sneak Julia
out of the U.S. with the inadvertent help of the U.S. authorities.
(According to the Swedish media, the plane tickets Sofia used for this
abduction were purchased by a collection fund established for Sofia in
her hometown of Sandviken, Sweden.) This abduction occurred 4\1/2\
years ago, and Sofia has illegally prevented me and my daughter from
seeing each other ever since then.
The federal court immediately ordered Sofia to return to Utah with
Julia, which she refused to do, as a result of which the federal court
found her in contempt and issued a warrant for her arrest. The court
then made a second order which required Sofia to return Julia to Utah
within 30 days and formally requested the assistance and cooperation of
the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as Sweden's Central Authority
for the Hague Convention, in enforcing and facilitating Julia's return
to Utah. The order was sent to the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by the U.S. State Dept., with an official request for Sweden's
cooperation and assistance under the international treaty. The Swedish
mother again simply thumbed her nose at the U.S. court, and the Swedish
Ministry of Foreign Affairs' response to the United States' formal
request for assistance was a one-sentence fax stating ``I would like to
inform you that despite [sic] Ms. Ohlanders [sic] actions we cannot
find any prerequisite of returning Julia to Utah according to the
Hague-convention [sic].''
At that point I filed a request for a final ruling by the federal
court in Sofia's Hague Convention case, to which Sofia's lawyers
responded by filing a motion to dismiss the entire case, based upon the
disingenuous argument that there was no longer any need for the case
since Sofia had already accomplished her purpose for filing the case,
namely getting Julia out of the U.S. and back once more to Sweden. The
court denied her motion, and after several more delay and avoidance
tactics by Sofia's lawyers, I was finally able to get the case heard.
In June 1995 the federal court entered its final Hague Convention
judgment, ruling that all of Sofia's abductions of Julia from the U.S.
were unlawful violations of the Hague Convention, that Julia's proper
residence as viewed by the Hague convention was in the state of Utah,
U.S.A., and had been so since her birth, and that my return of Julia to
Utah was a lawful restoration of Julia to her proper residence. The
judgment ordered both Sofia and myself to ``take all steps necessary''
to secure Julia's return to Utah, and formally requested Sweden to
recognize and enforce the judgment under the Hague Convention. As
before, this judgment was sent to the Swedish Ministry of Foreign
Affairs by the U.S. State Dept., with an official request for Sweden's
cooperation in its recognition and enforcement under the international
treaty.
Because Sofia continued to thumb her nose at the federal court, and
the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs continued in its stance of non-
cooperation, I was forced to travel to Sweden in the summer of 1995 to
seek enforcement via a Hague Convention court action there. In that
action, Sofia's lawyer argued that the U.S. Hague Convention ruling had
no legal effect in Sweden and was not enforceable there, and that the
Swedish courts had to ignore the ruling and ``independently try the
case from the standpoint of Swedish law.'' I spent 2\1/2\ months in
Sweden pushing the case through the trial and appellate court levels,
during which time Sofia kept Julia in hiding and defied all efforts by
me, my attorney, the U.S. Embassy, and the U.S. State Dept. to arrange
for contact between me and my daughter.
During the entire span of the court battles in the U.S. and Sweden,
Sofia and her friends actively engaged in a very extensive media
campaign for public support in Sweden, painting a picture of a poor,
innocent Swedish mother and her Swedish daughter (without my knowledge
Sofia had even officially registered Julia in Sweden as a Swedish
citizen, with her birthplace listed as Sandviken, Sweden, and the
Swedish authorities were totally uncooperative with my attempts to
correct that false information) who were being harassed and terrorized
by a powerful foreign-father ogre whom the daughter didn't even know
and whose only motivation for trying to tear the poor Swedish girl away
from the bosom of her Swedish mother and her Swedish ``homeland'' was
to increase his own status and dominion. Instead of portraying the
legal battle as being between the two parents, with the child being the
subject thereof, the Swedish media consistently portrayed it as Sofia
and Julia on one side (e.g., Sofia's lawyer was constantly referred to
as ``Sofia's and Julia's lawyer'') heroicly battling for their rights
against the harassments of the ``foreign father'' and his imperialistic
country on the other side. Sofia was repeatedly quoted as saying that
all she wanted was ``to be left in peace'' so that she and her daughter
could ``live a normal life.'' the image was so compelling that it led
to well over a hundred newspaper articles and television interviews, at
least one full-length feature article in a popular national Swedish
women's magazine, and a half-hour prime-time television docudrama which
aired throughout Scandinavia, in which Julia was used as an actress to
play herself in professional ``re-enactments'' of Sofia's rendition of
Julia being ``abducted'' by her brutal American father and ``rescued''
by her Swedish mother, both of whom were played by professionals.
In accordance with Sofia's arguments for non-recognition of the
U.S. Hague convention judgment, the Swedish trial court completely
disregarded the U.S. judgment and ruled not to return Julia to the U.S.
The Swedish appellate court also failed to grant recognition to the
U.S. Hague Convention judgment, but rightly reversed the Swedish trial
court's decision and ruled substantially in accordance with the U.S.
judgment, ordering Sofia to turn Julia over to me within 6 days for
return to the U.S.
Sofia continued to hide Julia from me, and she and her family and
friends sharply escalated their campaign for public support through the
Swedish media. Instead of portraying the Swedish appellate court ruling
as the return of a wrongfully abducted child to her habitual residence
and homeland, the Swedish media painted it as the ``extradition'' of a
terrified little ``Swedish girl'' from her Swedish homeland and her
heartbroken Swedish mother. The Swedish regional and national
television news broadcasted daily updates on the ``heroic'' efforts
being made by thousands of Swedish citizens to ``save'' Julia from the
appellate court ruling, which efforts included daily protest
demonstrations in the mother's hometown of Sandviken, mass visits to
influential leaders in the Swedish government appealing for their
intervention and thousands of signatures on petitions protesting the
ruling and requesting the Swedish Supreme Administrative's Court to
accept the mother's appeal and reverse the ruling.
On August 28, 1995, Sofia filed her appeal in the Swedish Supreme
Administrative Court, accompanied by the protest petitions she had
solicited. Two days later, on the day before Sofia was required to turn
Julia over to me pursuant to the appellate court's ruling, Sweden's
Supreme Administrative Court granted Sofia leave to appeal and stayed
enforcement of the appellate court ruling.
Four months later, the Swedish Supreme Administrative court
reversed the appellate court judgment, ruling that the Swedish courts
must categorically disregard prior Hague convention judgments from
other countries and independently re-adjudicate those cases (in other
words, free the forum-shopping Swedish parent from the adverse ruling
and allow them a fresh re-litigation in Sweden). In re-adjudicating the
case, the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court completely disregarded
and contradicted the recognized body of international Hague convention
case law and the official commentary on the Hague convention, ruling
that Sweden did not have to return Julia to the U.S. because the
Swedish mother had succeeded in unilaterally changing Julia's residence
from Utah to Sweden by virtue of her unlawful abductions of Julia from
Utah and her success in forcibly retaining Julia in Sweden against my
wishes for more than a year.
Despite Sweden's refusal to recognize the U.S. Hague Convention
judgment, the Swedish government fully funded an appeal by Sofia of
that judgment to the federal court of appeals. The Swedish government
also funded a concurrent extraordinary motion to have the federal
district court set aside its own Hague Convention judgment, based upon
the disingenuous argument that the Hague Convention requires the U.S.
courts to recognize and defer to the Swedish ruling (even though the
Swedish ruling explicitly refused to recognize or defer to the already-
existing U.S. ruling). After this extraordinary motion was denied by
the federal court, the Swedish government funded an appeal of that
denial to the federal court of appeals.
The enormous sums of money which Sweden poured into Sofia's
litigation in the federal court of appeals were not in vain, since that
court ended up ruling, with a 2 to 1 majority to vacate the U.S. Hague
Convention judgment and dismiss Sofia's U.S. Hague convention case,
which the appellate court majority reasoned was necessary in order to
``resolve'' the conflict which existed between the U.S. and Swedish
Hague Convention rulings. Instead of fulfilling the accepted function
of the federal court of appeals, namely reviewing the lower courts'
judgments for their legal correctness, the majority expressed the view
that it was the federal court of appeals' responsibility in this case
to ``untangle the Gordian knot'' created by subsequent, conflicting
Swedish ruling (which, of course, meant that they had to come up with a
way to reverse the U.S. ruling, since that was the only side of the
``knot'' they had any control over). In other words, by categorically
refusing to recognize any U.S. Hague Convention judgments and be re-
adjudicating the entire case in their own citizen's favor, the Swedish
courts succeeded in strong-arming the federal court of appeals and
getting them to back down. The majority ruling also completely ignored
the inherent Constitutional due process issue associated with their
dismissal ruling, namely that the courts of this country are not
allowed to deprive an American parent of his or her children without
affording that parent legal notice and the opportunity to be heard, and
without a proper adjudication of the merits of the deprivation. The
majority's decision to vacate the federal district court's Hague
convention judgment and dismiss the whole case (in essence, to forget
it ever happened) after the federal district court had forcibly
deprived me of my daughter ex parte, is equivalent to permanently
depriving me of my daughter without affording me any notice, any
opportunity to be heard in defense, and without any adjudication of the
merits of the deprivation. this ruling, which is a published, binding
precedent upon all federal courts in the 10th Circuit, was explicitly
intended by the majority ``to provide courts with guidance in future
similar cases.'' The majority concludes its arguments with the
astonishingly backwards assertion that ``Failing to grant [the Swedish
mother's] motion to dismiss also could create a new incentive for
parents to flee Hague Convention proceedings in the hope of obtaining a
second, more favorable Convention determination in another country.''
The very well reasoned dissent, which pointed out that the court of
appeals is not allowed to base its review of the lower court ruling
upon subsequently occurring circumstances which were not in existence
at the time the lower court ruled (i.e. upon the subsequent,
conflicting Swedish ruling), characterized the majority's ruling as
``unjustifiably abandon[ing] the rights of a United States citizen in
the name of international comity.''
The Swedish government has also fully funded Sofia's participation
in the custody action in the Utah state court, where I have been
awarded permanent sole custody of Julia, based upon a determination of
the ``best interests of the child.'' The Swedish government also funded
an appeal of the custody decree to the Utah Court of appeals, and
extraordinary motion to set aside the custody decrees, and an appeal of
the denial of that extraordinary motion. The Utah court of Appeals has
recently dismissed both of Sofia's appeals, and I am currently waiting
to see if the Swedish government will force me to expend even more
money by funding an appeal for Sofia to the Utah Supreme Court. Of
course, Sofia is in open violation of the custody decree and associated
money judgments from the Utah state court, where she has been cited for
contempt on 4 separate occasions and a warrant has been issued for her
arrest. Also, the Swedish courts have recently ruled that they will not
recognize or hold Sofia in any way bound by the Utah custody ruling,
and that Sofia may pursue her own custody ruling in Sweden, where she
will undoubtedly be awarded sole custody and child support.
So far Sofia and Sweden have forced me to expend over $80,000 in
attorney fees and over $25,000 in lost wages and other expenses in
defending against the harassing litigation which Sweden continues to
fund against me in the courts of my own country, which litigation is
explicitly aimed at depriving me of the parental rights which Sofia has
already illegally robbed me of. Although Sofia has been ordered to pay
me several thousand dollars in damages for her harassing litigation and
her deliberate defiance of the ensuing court orders and rulings, I have
no possibility of collecting any of those damages or of protecting
myself against the continuing financial drain of defending my rights
against this litigation. Because the Swedish government is only funding
the litigation and is not an actual ``party'' to it, I have no legal
recourse against them in this litigation, and because they continue to
protect their citizen-litigant against all of the ensuring orders and
judgments, I have no effective recourse against her either. In effect,
Sweden is supplying its citizen with an endless supply of ``bullets''
to attack my legal rights in my own country, while at the same time
erecting a ``bullet-proof'' wall of protection around her. She can thus
with total impunity engage in endless, risk-free, cost-free litigation
against me, with my only recourse being to irretrievably expend
enormous amounts of money and time trying to prevent her from
``legally'' robbing me of the parent rights which she has already
illegally robbed me of. As a result, my wife and I are more than
$45,000 in debt, and because of monthly loan payments and lawyer bills,
my family (myself, my wife, our 2\1/2\ year-old daughter Natalie, and
our 7 month-old son Benjamin) have been forced to live for the past 4
years on a budget that effectively places us below the poverty level as
defined by the U.S. government. On top of all this, the Swedish
government has been demanding that I pay Sofia monthly child support
and that I pay the Swedish government over 7 years of ``back child
support,'' including for periods of time during which Sofia and I were
still married and we were living together as a family here in Utah.
More importantly, the once close father-daughter relationship which
Julia and I shared has been destroyed by Sofia, with the active help
and support of her country. Due to Sweden's well-established stance in
favor of Swedish child-abducting parents, especially Swedish mothers,
and against ``foreign fathers'' in general, there appears to be no
mechanism available to help me even be able to see my daughter again.
______
Dear Senator Jesse Helms: Please, present my case to the Foreign
Relations Committee hearing held on Oct. 1. I have not heard from or
about my children since January 1991. I want the U.S. Embassy to do
more than simply tell me they don't know where my children are. I have
heard most recently from a friend in Egypt that my children are and
have been residing in Cairo all along. Neither the U.S. Embassy nor the
Other government agencies have done any welfare and whereabouts checks
in the last several years. They only sent back the birthday cards I
sent them to hold onto for my children. The Vice Consul stated in his
letter ``We have no place for such things and will let you know if we
hear anything about your children.'' This is a cold and cruel response
to send to a mother whose been waiting for seven years to hear anything
that the Embassy is doing about locating my children. It is more than
disappointing, it is ``Child Neglect.''
Sincerely,
Barbara Mezo.
______
Where are My Children
by barbara mezo
I remember when my son Mohammed was first born. He was a forceps
delivery and when he cried his little face only moved on one side. I
sat with him everyday holding him while he was in the Neonatal
Intensive care unit at Brooklyn Hospital, in New York. I did not worry
or cry. I knew that he would be okay. I held him and tried to feed him
through a small tube until he was healed and able to breast feed. These
memories are all that I have now since his father AbdelAziz kidnapped
him to Egypt in May 1988. Along with my little girl Leila, who was just
learning how to speak in full sentences when she was taken. They were
only age six and two at the time. It's been ten years now of pain and
tears, Holiday after Holiday, after Birthday has gone by where I am not
able to spend the precious moments of my childrens' growing.
The last time I saw my two children was in Cairo, Egypt, January
15, 1991, two days before Saddam Hussein of Iraq fired the first
missiles on Israel causing the Middle East Gulf War. I did not know
then that my children would also be taken to Libya in their father's
defiance against my Egyptian custody order. I already had custody from
the United States, but the State Department told me the U.S. had no
jurisdiction in Egypt since their is no treaty with regards to child
abduction. I believed the custody orders I obtained would be enforced,
but they were not and I was led down a trail of tasks and documents
which to date still leave me not knowing or having contact with my two
American children.
Dr. AbdelAziz Elmergawi, my ex-husband, is a U.S. Felon under the
Parental Kidnapping Act. However, even so, there is no Provisional
Arrest Warrant that enable authorities in a Foreign country anywhere to
arrest him. He travels freely on both U.S. and Egyptian passports
without restriction. He could be in your town too! I need help from
caring and concerned people. I am asking that people write, or fax
letters to the U.S. Attorneys office in Washington D.C., and demand
that a provisional arrest warrant be issued so that my two children and
I can be reunited again.
______
from the parent of priscilla howard
Impact Statement
My child was illegally abducted out of the United States between
the 05th of March 1994 and 06 March 1994 to Germany.
Germany demands parental kidnappers fleeing to the United States be
extradited back to Germany and they are. Germany however will not
extradite her citizens for Parental kidnapping to Germany.
Germany does not honor the Hague Treaty with the United States. Had
I applied for a Hague petition to recover my abducted child it would
have a cost of $10,000.00 and Germany would have refused the return of
my kidnapped child.
Another ploy my assailant used was to keep her where-abouts
unknown. Once a child is settled in Germany for a year a Hague Petition
will not return the child. All I had to go on was that my child as at a
Temporary address in Germany for 3 months. It took over 18 months to
determine my child was settled in Germany after her abduction. I have
had no contact what so ever with my child since 1994. I have U.S.
Custody of my child. I just received a letter from the U.S. Postal
Service and the letter just verified I still have no address for my
abducted child.
My Parental kidnapping case is therefore a non Hague Parental
Abduction to Germany. NCMEC Case No# 847890 NCIC Case No MO4981559
The abductor of my child, Elfriede Howard, is guilty of violating
the United States Parental Kidnapping Act that became law in December
of 1993.
The United States has been forced to adopt new laws because of
Germany and other countries do not honor the Hague Treaty with the
United States regarding the return of American Citizen Children
illegally removed from the United States. House Res. Bill #224, is
titled the International Parental Abduction Bill. I encourage everyone
to vote for this necessary and essential bill.
I was Awarded U.S. Custody of my Child Priscilla Howard on 05
December 1994. This Decision was decreed from the Cochise County Court
in Arizona DR94000284.
The German Children's Social Services is under orders from my
child's abductor to provide me with ``keine Auskunift'' ``No
information whatsoever'' regarding my child. I sent them a certified
copy of my American Custody order with a translation. My child does not
receive gifts or letters I send to her. I do not believe the address
that appears on German court documents is where my child resides.
Germany will not allow the U.S. Consulate to perform a welfare check of
my daughter. Parent Alienation Syndrome is profoundly supported by the
German government. Germany does not honor American Custody orders.
Germany always gives custody to the German Abductor despite standing
custody orders from other countries.
On 01 June 1998 I received from a U.S. Marshal a German court
summons to attend a hearing to determine how much child support I must
pay the abductor of my child. I have U.S. Custody and I am certain that
Germany has no jurisdiction over me as a U.S. Citizen living in
Arizona.
Germany has bilateral agreements with all states and they
specifically stipulate that American courts cannot alter in any way
German Court decisions. Germany does not honor the Hague Treaty and
going to a German civil court is even more profoundly unfair to Non-
Germans. I do not know if Courts in Sister states would uphold a German
court decision regarding child support for an illegally abducted child.
It is becoming more and more difficult to have a provisional warrant
issued by the FBI since Germany will not extradite her citizens for
Parental Kidnapping. Without a warrant for parental kidnapping how
would future left behind parents be treated when Germany uses these
bilateral agreements for kidnapped American citizen children? Using
American civil courts could be a way abducting Felons could siphon
American Dollars out of the United States.
France is having the same problem with Germany. Here is an e-mail
from a French woman who asked people in our support group to help her
in her fight to prevent her child from being sent to Germany for court
ordered visitation. We all banded together and sent Faxes and letters
to President Chirac begging him not to allow this child to be sent to
visit the non-custodial parent in Germany since it would result in lost
custody. The German courts, I reiterate are unfair to Non-Germans!
Here is a request from a French Woman asking us for action
regarding Germany's reputation for Parental Kidnapping. I do know if I
agree with her action to go on a hunger strike. Her fear that Germany
does not comply with the Hague Treaty and that she will never see her
daughter again are very real! Her call for action follows:
call for action
Dear Friends and fellow victims,
Karine Koch from France has been ordered by a French Court to
return her 9 months old daughter Ann-Valerie to Germany on
September 11, 98. Everybody knows that if she does return Ann-
Valerie, SHE WILL NEVER SEE HER AGAIN.
Germany does not comply with the Hague Convention, never
gives custody to the non German parent and does not enforce
rights of visitation while other countries do. If the Alien
parent is given custody in his own country, the child will not
be returned after the first visitation in Germany and the
German parent will obtain custody in Germany. No matter what is
the legal decision, IN DEALING WITH GERMANY YOU ALWAYS END UP
SCREWED UP!!! Enough is enough! Germany and our weak
governments need a lesson. ``SOS Children's Abductions by
Germany'' has created a Support Committee for Karine who
refuses to return Ann-Valerie. Karine will start a hunger
strike on Monday, September 7, 1998, Place Vendome in Paris
right at the Ministry of Justice which serves at the Central
Authority for France. Until the decision is reversed she will
not feed herself; this is very courageous and she's putting her
life in line.
The media have been alerted and will cover Karine's fight for
her baby. The TV will be following her from the beginning until
the end. This will bring a lot of attention to our cause.
Karine is not doing this only for her or for German cases: she
fights for our common cause: Internationally Abducted Children.
``SOS Children's Abductions by Germany'' is an official member
of the P.A.R.E.N.T. Coalition. They need our help and support.
Please, starting now, write or call massively to: President
Jacques CHIRAC, Palais de L'Elysee, 55 et 57, rue du Faubourg
Saint-Honor, 75008 Paris, France.
I shared my experiences with President Chirac along with many
American left behind parents. I am told France required the German
parent to go to France for visitation because of concerns with
Germany's reputation.
In closing I would like to say that one of the most appalling
things I have ever experienced trying to enforce my American custody
order in a German court. Germany typically awards custody to the German
citizen abductor regardless of justice! American Left behind parents
are treated unfairly in German courts. Germany has essentially torn up
the Hague Treaty with the United States and other European countries! I
feel we should do the same with Germany! I believe that is the only way
we are going to correct this problem by forcing Germany to come to our
courts to resolve problems. This suggestion would ensure fairness.
Germans are not fair to non-German left behind parents. That is why
this hearing is being held.
One thing Germany has done to me that I know has happened to many
other American left behind parents. America needs to address this; When
the custodial American parent goes to a German court in an attempt to
recover a kidnapped child, Germany serves the searching parent with a
subpoena. It is a motion to transfer custody to the victim's German
assailant! Americans should be warned, NEVER SUBMIT TO GERMAN COURT
JURISDICTION! German courts always give the German abducting parent
custody. This is a total disregard for American law! The purpose of
House Resolution Bill 224 is to address the problem that civil means of
recovering an Internationally Abducted child never brings the child
home! I believe that bilateral agreements courts have with Germany need
to take full jurisdiction over all issues. The clause that prohibits
German Decrees from being altered by American courts should be
stricken. Germany disregards American Court decisions. American Courts
should therefore take jurisdiction over issues of custody, visitation
and child support in this country.
As a victim of Parental Kidnapping I am enclosing letters to
Senators, and Lawmakers that point out problems I have encountered. I
have included suggestions to fix the overwhelming dilemma of
International Parental Abduction.
I will provide this panel with any document requested. I will send
any document I have to any lawmaker for the asking.
I Sincerely thank you for your interest in this very emotional
matter.
Joseph R. Howard,
Priscilla's Dad.
Sept. 23, 1998.
Hon. Madeleine K. Albright,
Secretary of State.
Dear Madame Secretary: I'm writing to you about the illegal
abduction of my daughter (Namet Beydoun) over 4 years and 9 months ago,
she was taken to Sidon, Lebanon. I was not allowed to see or even talk
to my daughter until December 1997. Sept. 10-16 was my most recent and
2nd visit to see my daughter. God is good! This time her heart was more
open and receptive to me.
The case file is active with the Office of Children's Issues, U.S.
Dept. of State; thus, I will not go into greater details, other than in
the past. I have had very little positive action with the office,
instead, it has been mostly confrontational.
However, now I have a very important request. I wish action to be
taken from your office to recognize an employee who has done her job
and done it with all diligence. Ann McGahuey, who now handles my
daughters case has and is doing everything in her prescribed capacity
to enable communication between me and the American Embassy in Beirut,
between me and my daughter and her family in Lebanon. IT IS WORKING!
The family in Lebanon mentioned to me during my recent visit, perhaps
they will let my daughter visit me in the U.S. (I'm sure this will take
more visits and trust building time). Four years and nine months is a
long time of propaganda to be fed to a child. (This is why I
desperately needed communication advocacy from the above mentioned.)
Ann McGahuey has literally been terrific! On my recent trip to
Lebanon, Sept. 9-16, 98, I was bumped on my return flight; due, to
previous death threats in past years, by my ex-husbands family to me,
my family here in Texas went frantic when I did not return. Ms.
McGahuey went into action, tracked me down and possibly saved my mother
from a severe physical attack or problem.
In the past I have openly complained to our U.S. media about the
inaction of the Office of Children's Issues. Now I want to give credit
where and when it is greatly due, as well, to our U.S. media.
However or whatever your process of recognition is for an employee
who has done a job well done please do it.
This is extremely important to me. My daughter is my life and for
years I have struggled just to see her.
Whatever your procedure of recognition for Ms. McGahuey, please
send a hard copy to me, as I am in personal need to know she has been
recognized.
If you should need any additional, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Terri Beydoun.
______
September 29, 1998.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
Dear Senator: I am submitting for the record my statement about the
difficulties involved in the illegal abduction of my daughter, Namet
Beydoun, (now age 14) to Sidon, Lebanon, by her father 4 years and 9
months ago.
At the time I filed for divorce, I requested supervised
visitations, for her father, until my daughter reached the age of 12,
because of previous threats from him, that he would take her. (My
request was denied). At one time I refused to give my daughter to her
father for his weekend vacation. I had a feeling he was going to take
her. The police were called and I was advised by my attorney and the
police officer; that I could and would be found in contempt of court:
thus, the father would gain custody of my daughter, and then he could
take her anywhere he wanted. (The police officer offered in his written
report; that I appeared paranoid.)
Due to fact I had been married to my ex-husband for many years, I
was aware of the fact that my ex-husband could not obtain passports for
my daughter without physical presentation, in person to the Embassy of
Lebanon and the Embassy of Cyprus, or a notarized statement by me
telling the Embassies that I gave my permission that they issue her
passports for their countries. He forged my signature, both for the
Embassy of Lebanon and the Embassy of Cypress and obtained passports
for her. An employee of the STATE OF TEXAS, notarized these forgeries.
(I sued the State of Texas, for money needed to try to recover her. The
State of Texas acknowledged the negligence but claimed immunity, the
case was denied). I had possession of her USA passport and had
requested that Passport Services not issue another one.
At the time my daughter did not come home from her weekend visit
with her father and I had checked all other possibilities, I went to
the Police station, The officers there treated me in a belligerent,
demeaning way, not wanting to report her missing. One officer even had
the audacity to tell me, ``Well honey, you made your bed, now lay in
it.'' Finally after pleading, begging and crying, the police did put
her in the NCIC. The police investigator assigned to the case was
either on vacation or sick. No one ever was really sure which. (At the
time bad weather had closed Kennedy down and time was of great
importance). After a battle with the police dept. I went to the local
media and then the FBI took over and warrants were then issued.
Until 2 years ago I didn't have any contact with any support
groups, or advocacy organizations for parents of Int'l Abducted
children. I was unable to get any information about them. The National
Ctr hadn't even told me there was an international division, within
their organization.
Until 1 year ago I had no personal contact with our United States
Embassy? Beirut, Lebanon. Certainly not for my lack of trying!
With the exception of Ann McGahuey, Office of Children's Issues,
U.S. Dept of State, (who took my case) any contact with this office
were confrontational and emotionally devasting. I would FAX information
to this office and repeatedly be told I needed to FAX the same
information. With FAX confirmations in my hand, I was told I had not
done it, After reading the handbook on International Parental
Abduction, by the U.S. Dept. of State, I was very aware our government
was in no way going to try to recover my daughter. Time after time, I
had to listen to the caseworkers in the Office of Children's Issues
tell me this. Again as I have complained about my treatment from this
office, I must once again put into statement that Ms. Ann McGahuey, has
done every thing I believe that she could do under official directives.
(Her treatment to me and help on my case has been wonderful).
My own U.S. Texas Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison's office,
(constituent staff aide, Carolyn Kobey, sent me a letter and said my
problem was of a personal nature and there was nothing they could do).
At this time I was only trying to get someone to try to facilitate some
type of communication with the Lebanese or someone of influence to help
talk with the family in Lebanon, so that I might just see my daughter,
not physically recover her. Thus I was forced to stage a demonstration
around the Fed. Building, Lubbock, Texas, just to get any reaction from
my Senators offices. It did not work. However, I have had many
concerned citizens call me and tell me just what Carolyn Kobey of Kay
Bailey Hutchison's office told them, that I was crazy out of my mind
and unemployed. I have testimony from these individuals on this fact. I
had to go to the media every time I needed any reaction from my own
elected government officials. All I was looking for was a way to
communicate with my daughter, or just merely establish a relationship
with the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. I have never been sure what the office
of Senator Phil Gramm has done. I would ask them to tell me what was
being done and the staff aides would tell me, ``just be assured the
Senator is doing all he can.''
As my telephone and correspondence records well reflect, I have
tried to contact everyone from the United Nations to Ross Perot. My
list of lamentations goes on and on.
As far as our U.S. government help goes, only the office of the
Honorable Jesse Helms, the office of U.S. Rep. Larry Combest and Ann
McGahuey of the Office of Children's Issues, have done anything to help
in any way. However, I did get to see my daughter, for the time in
December 1997 and then again in September of this year. The visits were
very short, well supervised. Not until this last visit was I even able
to sit with the child that was born from my own body.
THE GREAT HAND OF GOD, REACHED OUT! He knew the desires of my heart
and allowed me to see my daughter, not once but twice. As you can see I
had tried everything I could, even a mercenary organization. Now I
believe it is a matter of time and once again pressure on the family
where my daughter lives. Finances have become a very big issue.
Throughout almost 5 years, I as most parents of int'l abducted children
have nothing but debts. and it seems there is no help for a parent to
help re-establish a relationship their rightful relationship. No help
with the Airlines, accommodations, transportation, etc. God willing I
will find the finances that need to keep an knocking on the door of the
house my daughter lives.
I am at this time concerned about some of the advocacy
organizations, that continue to represent us parents. In the recent
past I have seen almost fraudulent behavior out of these groups.
I thank the Committee on Foreign Relations for allowing this to be
put into public record. Honorable Senator Helms, I thank God for you
and your office.
Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them.
Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go
after the lost sheep until he finds it, he joyfully puts it on
his shoulders and goes home. then he calls his friends and
neighbors together and says, `Rejoice with me; I have found my
lost sheep.' Luke 15:4-6
Sincerely,
Terri Beydoun,
Lubbock, Texas.
______
Senator Jesse Helms,
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations.
Dear Senator Helms: My name is Mitchell Goldstein and I am a left-
behind Parent in Georgia. I understand that on Oct. 1, you have called
a special meeting of the Committee on Foreign Relations to hear the
matter of International Child Abduction.
It is my understanding that parents are invited to submit their
story to be placed on the record. I would be very interested in not
only having my story made part of the record, but also having the
opportunity to speak about my case before the committee or at this late
date attend the meeting. My case is a classic example of a contracting
country (Switzerland) not complying with the Hague Treaty. I am ready,
willing and able to testify before this committee if so asked and at a
minimum would request that you would speak on my behalf and assist me
in the recovery of my daughter.
To follow is a brief outline of my nightmare:
On or about September 4, 1996 my Swiss ex-wife abducted our
then 4-year-old daughter, Kelly Goldstein (whom I have custody
of) and took her to Switzerland.
Since that time I have been in the Swiss Courts seeking the
return of Kelly via the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects
of International Parental Child Abduction. After numerous
failed appeals filed by my ex-wife, the Supreme Court of
Switzerland ordered her to return Kelly to the USA in a final
decision rendered 9/97.
In September, I traveled to Switzerland to bring Kelly home.
Once there, my ex-wife again took Kelly and went into hiding.
After three frustrating weeks trying to bring closure to this
nightmare, I was left with no choice but to return home alone.
On October 15, 1997 I returned to Switzerland to bring Kelly
home after Swiss authorities had informed me that her mother
had turned herself in. However once there my former wife again
refused to comply with the Court order and authorities refused
to enforce the order. I was almost arrested at the Zurich
airport after my former wife made a scene during what was
supposed to have been her compliance with the court order.
After this attempt to bring Kelly home, my ex-wife had her
put in a foster care facility in Switzerland against my wishes.
Swiss authorities seemed unconcerned that there was a verdict
from the highest Court in the country ordering Kelly be
returned to the USA.
Prior to the date Kelly was to be released from the foster
care facility (approximately two weeks later), I returned to
Switzerland to bring her home. I was to meet with her for three
days to get reacquainted before returning to the U.S. with her.
On the day prior to bringing her home, my ex-wife trumped up
new allegations and petitioned the courts to re-open the case.
Once again I was forced to leave Switzerland without my
daughter.
My ex-wife then filed new appeals based on these latest
allegations. After another year went by, the Supreme Court on
September 7, 1998 upheld all lower court decisions denying my
ex-wife's attempt to reopen the case. I am now faced with
trying to have the order enforced again.
Just prior to the abduction, my ex-wife remarried. Her new father-
in-law, Thomas Pfisterer is a politician in Switzerland and is
assisting her in ignoring the court orders. After the foster care
episode, my ex moved to the same Canton in which her father-in-law
resides and is in office. Obviously in an attempt to further hinder the
return of Kelly.
Your assistance in the return of Kelly would be hold me forever in
your debt. You may contract me at my office (770) 308-3320, home (404)
233-6498 or by mail at 3636 Habersham Road Condo 2110 Atlanta, GA .
Sincerely,
Mitch Goldstein.
______
Violaine Delahais,
Mesa, AZ ,
September 29, 1998.
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Re: October 1, 1998-Hearing on International Child Abductions
Dear Members of the Foreign Relations Committee: Thank you for
trying to actually do something about our missing children.
I am part of the P.A.R.E.N.T. International coalition for which I
am the Director of Affairs for France. I am a French citizen and a
permanent resident of the United State of America. I will be an
American citizen in two years as well as my son Rayan El Kadi and I am
proud of it. Parents among our advocacy group struggle together, along
with organizations worldwide, to bring our children home. I was in
Arlington, Virginia on September 15 and 16, 1998 attending the NCMEC
Forum on the Uses and Abuses of the Hague Convention.
I understand that you need statements on the subject of
International Child Abductions for your next hearing and I would like
to take this opportunity to give you some details on my case which is
the result of an incredible miscarriage of the American justice.
My son, Rayan, age 7, was abducted by his non-custodial father,
Imad Nadim El Kadi for the second time on October 17, 1997. I have had
no contact with Rayan since; however, he has been located in Beirut,
Lebanon, the native country of my former husband.
Imad El Kadi was indicted by a Maricopa Grand Jury in May 1997 for
the first abduction that occurred in 1994 and while he was on bail,
Judge Barry C. Schneider form the Mesa Superior Court of Justice,
issued an ex-parte Emergency Temporary Custody Order in his favor on
October 16, 1997, without previous notice to me. Judge Schneider simply
ignored the case's history of four years of litigation in three
different countries and made the biggest mistake.
On October 17, 1997, El Kadi, who is not and has never been a legal
resident of the United States of America, with the help of his lawyer
and four men, violently snatched Rayan from school and disappeared with
him. His Temporary Custody Order was quashed by Judge Sherry Hutt from
the Phoenix Superior Court on October 23, 97 but it was too late.
After the first abduction, in November 1994, I went to Lebanon and
retrieved Rayan with the help of private services. A warrant for
questioning has been issued against me in Lebanon although El Kadi had
not and still does not have a Lebanese Custody Order granting him
custody of Rayan. There is no way that I can go back to Lebanon without
being arrested.
The second time, Rayan was abducted with the assistance of an
American Judge. I filed a compliant against Judge Schneider and he
appeared for a confidential hearing before the Commission on Judicial
Conduct on January 16, 1998. My complaint was dismissed and the case
was closed with no explanation.
I have filed a Bar Complaint against El Kadi's lawyer, Cheryl L.
Sivic who claimed her Fifth Amendment Privilege when she was questioned
by Judge Sherry Hutt about the possible location of my son on October
23, 1997; she committed perjury in the Mesa Court in order to obtain
the ex-parte Order. My complaint is still pending.
However, these proceedings will not bring Rayan back. I need all
the help and the assistance I can get to bring my son home. The UFAP
Warrant was issued eight months after the abduction when it took less
than three months in 1994! This allowed the FBI to finally request a
red notice from Interpol in June of 1998. But last week the request for
extradition was officially denied by the County Attorney's Office
because ``extradition is too expensive''. Therefore, Interpol will only
be able to issue a yellow notice (last priority).
Obviously, I did not succeed in explaining that I am just trying to
secure the future. With the many friends and relatives that my ex-
husband has in Europe, it is very conceivable that he will try to enter
a country where Interpol could arrest him. Knowing that a request for
extradition had been issued, it could prevent him from traveling again.
I had long talks with my FBI Agent and we agreed that my part is to
bring my son back because nobody else will do it for me and I always
knew that. Law enforcement's job is to protect us from a third
abduction once Rayan is back. That why I wanted so bad a ``request for
provisional arrest'' as a threat that would keep the abductor a
prisoner in his own country. There is very little chance that the
abductor will ever be arrested and actually extradited. The State of
Arizona does not have to fear for it's money.
Why should we victims have to beg, cajole, and grovel, before
public officials to get them to do their jobs?
My FBI Agent, Bob Caldwell, who is doing a great job, always faces
the same obstacles:
(1) No cooperation or communication is possible between U.S.
and Lebanon,
(2) A lot of avenues are not available because I am not yet
an American citizen.
Yet, I feel that I deserve some consideration from a system that
has allowed my son to be kidnapped for the second time and has taken
eight months to issue a basic warrant. Imad El Kadi has defied the
American system, the American Justice and the American laws twice and
that should be sufficient to motivate this country to stop him
regardless of my son's citizenship. Senator John McCain has taken
interest in my case and I am grateful for that.
My point is: in most of the abduction cases that I know of, a
pattern can be found: they could have been prevented. And knowing that,
you understand the deep frustration of the left-behind parents.
Prevention can be done through information (most of the judges and
lawyers are ignorant about this issue) and SANCTIONS. Why should an
abductor think twice before committing this terrible crime when he/she
and his/her accomplices have to fear no consequences of their act?
We need awareness about this issue and strong measures need to be
taken against abductors and their accomplices as well as measures
against the countries who protect these criminals.
The way Saudi's Embassy employees treated the grieving American
mothers on September 23, 1998 in front of an horrified American crowd
shows the cruel and sad reality: America is no longer respected and
that is not tolerable.
America is the most courageous country in a lot of areas: I wish
France would have the initiative to bomb terrorist countries instead of
welcoming terrorist leaders from all over the world and provide them
with medical care and nice castles paid with the taxes of the French
people.
America can and needs to be a leader in becoming an example in the
issue of International Child Kidnapping: show the world that you will
not accept that children will be taken out of their country and away
from their family.
If other countries would know that when a child is taken from
America and wrongfully detained somewhere in the world, these countries
would stop receiving any help from America and that a rescue team would
immediately come and get this children back home, I bet abductions
would become exceptions instead of an ever growing problem.
I know these are extreme measures but remember: we are dealing with
extreme people. Holding children as hostages and as a means of
blackmail against the other parent is a terrorist act and when we face
terrorism the regular rules are not applicable because they are not
effective.
I might sound naive to you but America is the world's leader: what
are you waiting to implement new rules and have them enforced by and
means? You will only get more respect from your fellow Americans and
everlasting gratefulness from our children and left-behind parents.
I sincerely thank you for your time and your effort in helping our
children. We need more politicians like you.
Very truly yours,
Violaine Delahais,
P.A.R.E.N.T., Director of Affairs for France,
Mother of Rayan El Kadi, 7, abducted to Lebanon for the second time
on 10/17/97.
______
John J. Lebeau,
Palm Beach Gardens, FL,
August 10, 1998.
Senator Jesse Helms,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
Re: Your June 3, 1998 letter to Madeleine Albright; and my struggle
with the Justice Department regarding the international parent
kidnapping of Ruth and Luke Lebeau to Denmark.
Dear Chairman Helms: Thank you for your outstanding efforts on
behalf of missing and abducted children throughout the world, and
specifically those being illegally retained in several European
countries. I am speaking of course of those countries such as Denmark
that are signatories to the Hague Convention, but are, in numerous
cases, in direct non-compliance with the unambiguous terms of this
treaty.
In addition to the problems we are experiencing overseas, left-
behind parents such as myself are fighting a different, but no less
exasperating battle right here at home, in our efforts to have our
children returned. We are experiencing an almost inconceivable
resistance from the Justice Department to pursue violators of the
International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993. And in my own case
it has gone to the extreme level of having now to initiate legal action
against the United States government, as per my enclosed letter of
August 4, to Ms. Donna Bucella.
In addition, I would like to second Mr. Paul Marinkovich's support
of your efforts as per his letter to you of July 30, 1998. Paul and I
are Co-Executive Directors of a non-profit organization called
International Child Rescue League, Inc. which we have formed to help
resolve these monumental problems which are victimizing countless
children throughout the world.
Finally, I would like to offer my time to appear in Washington for
any or all meetings, conferences, or even congressional hearings that
may take place in regards to this issue. I would even Sir be willing to
come visit with you alone to share more detailed information regarding
my specific experiences and insight in an effort to alleviate this
tragic situation.
Sincerely,
John J. Lebeau.
______
John J. Lebeau,
Palm Beach Gardens, FL,
August 4, 1998.
Ms. Donna A. Bucella,
Director, Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys,
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Re: United States Attorney Southern District of Florida's case
investigation of the international parental kidnapping of Ruth and Luke
Lebeau to Denmark
Dear Ms. Bucella: It is with great regret that I must write to you
once again regarding the above referenced case and the way it is being
handled by the (USAO) for the Southern District of Florida in West Palm
Beach.
To begin, I would first like to comment on the letter I received
from a Marcia W. Johnson of your office dated June 15, 1998. I am
particularly offended by both the tone and content of Ms. Johnson's
letter. First, by not responding to my letter of May 27, 1998 yourself,
Ms. Bucella, you are clearly implying that its purpose is not of
significant importance relative to your other daily activities, and I
am taking that as a personal insult to my intelligence, a determined
avoidance by your Southern District office to follow through with this
investigation to the best of their abilities and with the full power
provided by federal statutes, and a grave lack of human empathy for my
twin children who have been seriously victimized by this heinous crime.
Accordingly, please explain why Ms. Johnson uses the term
``alleged'' to describe the illegal, international retention of my
children by Mette Lebeau. As I can assure you that Ruth and Luke Lebeau
are not back in the U.S. and in my custody, as per the Danish High
Court Order of November 12, 1997, a copy of which was furnished to
(AUSA) Carolyn Bell over seven months ago, the illegal retention that
Ms. Johnson has referred to in the third line of her letter, is indeed
a fact, and not merely an allegation.
Secondly, Ms. Johnson states that the (USAO) and the FBI ``have
been actively investigating the matter involving your wife's retention
of your children . . . for some time.'' That statement Ms. Bucella, is
so ridiculously vague that it again is an insult to my intelligence,
for I know as a fact through my conversations with other law
enforcement officials that the (AUSA)'s investigation was begun a mere
19 days before my letter to you of May 27, 1998. This despite my urging
Ms. Bell and Mr. Neil Karadbil of her office to initiate an
investigation since March 1997. Their excuse for not doing so at that
time, and as per Ms. Johnson's letter, was that ``by law,'' I had to
exhaust all of my civil remedies first. This statement I have also
discovered to be either an outright lie, or a gross misunderstanding of
the authority of their positions. Ms. Bucella, in response to this
letter, please prove to me that the law required me to exhaust my civil
remedies before a federal investigation for violation of the
International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993 could commence.
As if that is not intolerable enough, when they finally did begin
to investigate this case some 14 months later, they began with a direct
violation of the National Child Search Assistance Act (Public law 101-
647; 42 U.S.C. 5779, 5780); and, may I remind you, that I have the
facts to prove it.
Thirdly, Ms. Johnson states that the case was further delayed due
to the necessity to investigate allegations of abuse which were made by
my wife, ``as it would be an affirmative defense to the kidnapping
offense if (my) wife were fleeing from domestic violence.'' Ms.
Bucella, please prove to me that specific allegations of violent abuse
were made by Mette Lebeau. I think you will find that extremely
difficult for the only allegations that Mette Lebeau ever made were
emotional in nature, and had absolutely no relevance to domestic
violence. That again was merely another excuse to avoid doing the job
we American taxpayers are paying the (USAO) to do (namely, pursuing the
issuance of an indictment and arrest warrant for a known and proven
violator of a federal crime). And again, as I stated in my last letter,
they have done all this at my immeasurable expense.
On page two of her letter, Ms. Johnson refers to the
``International Parental Kidnapping Statute.'' Please inform her that
there is no such statute. What she is no doubt referring to is called
the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993 (Public Law
103-173; 107 Stat. 1998; 18 U.S.C. 1204). She could have easily and
correctly identified this statute simply by referring to the very same
letter I wrote to you that she is attempting to respond to. Also, how
ridiculous of her to inform me six days later of the June 9 grand jury
indictment of Mette Lebeau. Had she properly investigated this matter
before responding to my letter she surely would have learned that the
indictment came as a direct result of my personal testimony before that
grand jury and that I was, in fact, present at the time it was
returned.
In addition, I would like the name of the person at the State
Department that ``indicated that pursuing the indictment would not
inhibit the diplomatic process.'' I trust that if you are even able to
provide me with that persons name, he/she will be of Legal Counsel to
the State Department for no one in the Office of Children's Issues at
the State Department where my case is being handled is of the authority
to provide legal advice to anyone, especially a United States Attorney.
In addition, I have been working with the State Department for almost
two years now, and am in contact with them several times per week. I
can assure you Ms. Bucella, that with the exception of one diplomatic
note from the American Embassy, that took the Danes over two months to
respond to, and contrary to the belief of (AUSA) Bell, and the
corresponding statements in Ms. Johnson's letter, there is not, and
never has been any ongoing ``diplomatic process.'' There has been only
the 14-month legal process, that according to the Hague Convention is
mandated to take no longer than six weeks, followed by the still-
ongoing criminal process. Thus, I can only conclude that this so-called
``diplomatic process'' that does not exist is merely another creation
of a clearly deceitful (USAO).
Next, I will address the following statement on page 2; paragraph 1
of Ms. Johnson's letter: ``A United States indictment or warrant in
this case will essentially duplicate the Danish requests for
international cooperation that has already been made.'' While I can
easily overlook this and previous incorrect uses of the English
language by your Legal Counsel in this letter Ms. Bucella, I must ask
you again as I did in my letter to you of May 27, . . . is it common
practice for the Department of Justice not to pursue violators of
federal crimes by avoiding to pursue warrants for their arrest? From my
numerous conversations over the past two years with other left-behind
parents, public officials, and legal professionals, I can only assume
that this is indeed true, unless you would like to answer my question
this time and inform me otherwise.
In paragraph 2 on page 2 of Ms. Johnson's letter she makes the
following statement: ``Therefore, unfortunately, an indictment or
warrant in this case may not have any great effect unless and until
your wife returns to the United States.'' In response to that Ms.
Bucella I have the following question. Since Mette Lebeau has herself
stated repeatedly in the Danish media that she is being harbored by an
``underground'' organization and that no one in the world but she and
the people assisting her know where she is, I ask you this. How has the
Department of Justice been able to acquire factual evidence that Mette
Lebeau has not already returned to the U.S.? Surely you cannot prove
that this has not occurred or will not occur in the future, thus making
the indictment and subsequent warrant I fought for six months to get,
of absolute critical importance to the safe return home of Ruthie and
Luke Lebeau!
Accordingly, I am going on record as stating emphatically that if I
discover that Mette Lebeau has indeed returned to the U.S. at any time
during the period between my second plea for the pursuit of an
indictment to (AUSA) Bell in December 1997, and June 9, 1998 (the date
it was finally returned), I will, with all my resources and energy,
pursue a legal claim against the United States government and the
Executive Office for United States Attorneys for violation of the
National Child Search Assistance Act (Public Law 101-647; 42 U.S.C.
5779, 5780).
In the final paragraph of her letter, Ms. Johnson indicates that
the (USAO) is ``coordinating'' with the State Department in attempting
to return my children. For your information Ms. Bucella, the (USAO) has
coordinated nothing with the State Department. Throughout her tenure
with the Office of Children's Issues, Ms. Ellen Conway of that office
has done an exemplary job of assisting me in the return of my children,
and I have formally acknowledged her efforts and professionalism in a
letter to the Director of that office. However, in contrast, the (USAO)
has done nothing but work against me since my first phone call to them
a year and half ago. And to this very day they continue to do so with
not only an unacceptable level of professionalism, but also with an
unfathomable lack of knowledge of how to properly handle an
investigation such as this.
For example, several weeks ago I learned from sources at the Office
of International Affairs, that applications for a Request for
Provisional Arrest should have been applied for subsequent to the
federal warrants that were issued as a result of the indictment
returned by the grand jury on June 9, 1998. (OIA) confirmed at that
time that such application had not been applied for as of that date,
already over one month after the indictment was returned.
Since this apparently standard procedure had not even been
mentioned to me by (AUSA) Bell, I took it upon myself to have an
application faxed to her directly, for her convenience. Several days
later, I received a call from (AUSA) Bell. Obviously quite disturbed by
the receipt of the application, she informed me in her usual
condescending tone, that I had no reason to have that application
forwarded to her. Ms. Bell told me that she not only would not, but
could not complete the application. She told me that the only way they
would complete and file the application was with specific and factual
evidence of the exact location of Mette Lebeau, I could make one phone
call to the Danish authorities and my traumatic two-year struggle would
be over, and my children safety returned to the U.S. However, not
having any reason to believe otherwise, as I am not a legal
professional or law enforcement officer, I accepted her statements as
true based on the authority of (AUSA) Bell's position. I accepted that
she knew the full scope and power of that authority better than I did.
After all, she is the (AUSA) and I earn my living in a field that
requires no knowledge of law enforcement methods. In addition, Ms. Bell
also informed me that since Interpol had issued a ``red notice'' for
Mette Lebeau, a Request for Provisional Arrest was completely
unnecessary.
Now either (AUSA) Bell thinks I am a gullible ignoramus, or she is
terribly unsure how to do her job, for ten minutes after that
conversation with Ms. Bell, with one phone call to Washington, I
determined that everything she had just told me was again either an
outright lie, or a gross misunderstanding of the authority and
responsibilities of her position. First, her statement regarding the
detailed information on Mette Lebeau that must be obtained with
evidence thereof, before the application could be made, is simply
untrue. In fact, I have learned that contrary to what (AUSA) Bell led
me to believe, following an indictment such as this, the filing of the
application without having such specific information is actually
standard procedure at OIA.
Now Ms. Bucella, will you please explain to me why the information
regarding this standard Justice Department procedure is so readily
available to me, yet completely unknown by your very own (AUSA),
supposedly a legal and law enforcement professional handling such
matters almost on a daily basis?
As if to add insult to injury, with that very same phone call to
Washington to corroborate Ms. Bell's statements to me, I learned
something that absolutely infuriated me. You'll recall that Ms. Bell
told me that the Request for Provisional Arrest was unnecessary anyway
because of the ``red notice'' already in place. Well, Ms. Bucella, that
again was easily proven untrue. To this very day there is absolutely no
``red notice'' in place, and in fact, at the time Ms. Bell told me
there was, the application for that notice had not even been filed! It
was only after I asked the FBI to provide me the date the notice was
issued that they informed me a week later that there had been a ``mix-
up'' and that there was no red notice in place. So tell me, is Ms.
Bell's standard operating procedure such that she makes such bold
declarations without even having the facts to back them up? In light of
the way this case has been handled from the beginning, these actions
are unconscionable!
Finally, after again contacting Ms. Bell via the FBI (the only way
she will accept any contact from me), to further discuss the
application for Request for Provisional Arrest, and to share with her
the information I learned regarding the standard OIA procedure of
filing it, I was left a message on Wednesday July 29, that Ms. Bell and
Special Agent Wilcox would together telephone me ``first thing'' the
following morning to further discuss the application for Request for
Provisional Arrest. I have yet to hear from them, and already, almost
another week has gone by.
Now once again Ms. Bucella, I will be perfectly clear. I demand
that in keeping with the full authority of the United States Attorney,
that the Southern District of Florida's West Palm Beach office file an
application for the ``Request for Provisional Arrest'' of Mette Lebeau,
and that this application be filed with the Office of International
Affairs by Friday, August 7, 1998. If this application is not made by
that date with absolute proof thereof delivered to me at the above
address or fax number, I will pursue my legal remedies, which I have
already determined to be ``valid and of considerable extent.'' In
addition, I have already learned that such a case would be of extreme
interest to the various local and national media contacts I am in
regular communication with.
May I humbly suggest that this time you give my letter your
personal attention.
Sincerely,
John J. Lebeau.
cc: Mrs. Hillary Clinton
The Honorable Janet Reno, U.S. Attorney General
The Honorable Madeleine K. Albright, U.S. Secretary of State
Ms. Mary Marshall, director, Office of Children's Issues, U.S.
Department of State
Thomas E. Scott, United States Attorney
Senator Jesse Helms, Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations
Congressman Benjamin Gilman, Chairman, House Committee on
International Relations
Ms. Mary Banotti, Fine Gael Member of the European Parliament
Mr. Ernie Allen, President, National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children
Lady Catherine V. Meyer
Congressman Nick Lampson
Congressman Bud Cramer
Congressman Bob Franks
Congressman Marion Berry
Congressman E. Clay Shaw
Ms. Mary Jo Grotenrath, Director, Fugitive Unit, Office of
International Affairs, Department of Justice
Mr. Charles Goolsby, Office of Policy, U.S. Information Agency
Mr. Ronald C. Laney, Director, Missing Children's Division, OJJDP,
U.S. Department of Justice
Mr. Gary Israel, P.A.
Mr. William R. Boose, III, P.A., Boose Casey Ciklin Lubitz Martens
Mcbane & O'Connell
Mr. John Boykin, P.A., Boose Casey, et al.
Mr. Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr., Boose Casey, et. al.
Ms. Mary Grady, CBS News
Ms. Ceil Sutherland, ABC Prime Time
Mr. Dan Moffitt, The Palm Beach Post
______
Kristine Uhlman/UmHani,
Sparta, New Jersey,
September 16, 1998.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: My perspective is the result of events and
experiences over the past 20 years, which include:
Smuggling myself and my two American born children out of
Saudi Arabia (June 23, 1981). My actions resulted in the deportation of
American Embassy personnel;
The violent and professional abduction of my two children,
2 and 4 years old, in violation of a Colorado court order granting me
custody (Sept. 11, 1981);
My return to Saudi Arabia under contract to work as a
single-status engineer and effort to litigate for custody in the
Islamic court (1983-1984);
My experience as the first American woman to be arrested
and imprisoned in the Central Riyadh Women's Prison (May, 1983);
My experience as the first American woman allowed to
litigate for custody in Saudi Arabia (Sept. 1983). I lost;
My testimony before Congress on the Unified Child Custody
Law (Sept. 22, 1981) and Human Rights Violations against United States
Citizens by the Government of Saudi Arabia (June 15, 1987);
My experiences during 5 visits to Saudi Arabia over 15
years to visit my children;
My work with Senator Alan Dixon towards the establishment
of the Office of Children's Issues at the Department of State (1987-
1990);
My work with Betty Mahmoody (author of Not Without my
Daughter) towards preventing international custody abductions. I have
provided expert testimony on Women's and Children's rights under
Islamic law during divorce and custody disputes across the United
States and in Canada; and
The perspective of my son, now 19 years old, on his return
to the United States after 17 years in Saudi Arabia.
I believe I am in the position to have an opinion on the situation
in Saudi Arabia as it relates to the custody abduction of dual-national
children, the imprisonment of American citizens, and the Islamic,
Shariah Court approach to an American women litigating for custody.
Custody disputes and child abduction is a widespread problem that
takes on horrendous implication when the parents are of different
cultures and religions. International laws are inadequate to address
many custody situations, especially those within the Islamic world. To
reduce the number of these abductions, we must educate our courts, the
lawyers, and the parents. Educate them with facts, which honor and
respect that the Islamic religion delineates a parent's rights and
responsibility to the child differently than our western traditions.
Educate them to identify the risks and remedies unique to each cross-
cultural custody dispute.
I was the first Western woman granted a single-status work permit
and visa in Saudi Arabia so as to litigate for access to my children in
the Islamic, Shariah court. Although the year I spent in the Kingdom
was difficult and included a five day internment in the Central Riyadh
Women's Prison, I came to understand that the Saudi Government makes
every effort within the constraints of their religious and cultural
traditions.
Cross-cultural miss-interpretations of an individual's actions or
intent are common. Within the intimate arena of family domestic
disputes and the widespread gender disequity basic to the Shariah Law,
custody disputes over dual-national children takes on immense
proportions.
I have worked with hundreds of victim parents over the past fifteen
years. Most of these parents have been mothers; young women who married
their Moslem partner with the intent to provide their children the best
of both our worlds--the East and the West. Many of the women overcame
intense displeasure within their own families because of these cross-
cultural pairings, and their strength and commitment must be admired.
Many of these victim parents have expressed concern that the
support they receive from the community during their custody disputes,
or after abduction, is fueled by intolerance of the Muslim people. What
a paradox. To produce children that are the product of religious and
cross-cultural tolerance (exhibited by the marriage between the two
parents), and to call out the bigots when the family breaks down. The
children have a right to both worlds, to both parents.
The perspective of any custody dispute should be from the right of
the child to have access to both parents. When a child has been taken
into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for example, I have recommended that
the mother contact the Saudi Embassy and make very effort to visit her
child. The Saudis have been cooperative, within their own cultural and
religious constraints, to honor a child's right to the mother. It
should be noted that the cultural and religious traditions within the
country honor the bond between mother and child to the extent that if a
mother is imprisoned, her young children accompany her in her cell. It
was my experience that over half the population of the Riyadh Woman's
Prison consisted of children and infants during my stay there in 1983.
If a family is litigating custody/visitation here in the United
States, I recommend that the child(ren) remain within the jurisdiction
of the American courts. The reason for this is that it has been my
experience that a spiteful abducting parent can, and will, prohibit a
victim parent from access to the child(ren). Until the Islamic courts
can assure equal access to a disputed child to both the mother and the
father within the foreign jurisdiction, I will continue to recommend
that the parent not be given the opportunity to take the child(ren)
outside of the United States. The United States courts have been shown
to protect the right of the child to access to both parents.
I also work on maintaining contact with an abducted child by
working with the government of the country in which the child is held.
Again, with my own personal experience and the few limited contacts I
had with my abducted children gave them the incentive to find me
seventeen years after they were stolen. I insist on access through
legal means, I do not believe in `recovery' by other means.
The risk of abduction can be thought of as an equation consisting
of two parts: likelihood and remedy. Likelihood is specific to the
unique circumstance of the individual family. Remedy refers to the
process and obstacles to the return of an abducted child. There are no
legal remedies available to a victim parent to return the child once
that child is taken into Saudi Arabia, or most other Islamic countries.
I have been accepted as an expert in several jurisdictions across
the United States on issues relating to American women's experience in
Shariah court, and the Shariah Law as it relates to divorce and custody
issues in Islamic countries. I provide expert-witness testimony during
custody disputes in an effort to establish supervised visitation in
high-risk cases, as well as to identify protective measures appropriate
for unsupervised visitation. I emphasize tolerance and respect for the
Islamic traditions. Only by working within the framework of our common
desire to do what is best for our children can we address this complex
issue of international abduction.
I am uncomfortable with the level of attention the media gives to
some of the louder advocates of intolerance to the countries in which
their children have been retained. Abduction is a harmful, egregious
act, a crime against a child, but it is an act of an individual who has
chosen to commit this crime against his (her) own child. Unfortunately,
the Shariah delineates the responsibility for the physical custody of a
child in a manner differently than our own. As a result, the abductor
often finds legal support for his actions within his homeland, and that
legal disparity is taken advantage of by the abducting parent. And,
unfortunately, the victim parent sometimes feels compelled to
distribute miss-information about the abductor's religion and homeland
to garner support for her cause. The media's attention should be
focused on how best to mediate these disputes, and to focus on
prevention through education. And we must proceed with facts,
diplomacy, and respect for other's beliefs.
I feel it is wrong to present only one side of the story, that it
is far more important to present facts and examples of diplomacy and
respect. It is only through negotiating with the Saudi's that one can
gain access to our abducted children, because the laws and traditions
of the Saudi people identify these children as Saudi citizens. The
mother's citizenship is not recognized, and American court orders
defining custody have no legal bearing. We cannot expect the Saudi's to
violate their own religious and cultural beliefs by removing these
children from their fathers. Although I made every effort to return my
children here to the United States, I honor and respect their dual
heritage and have accepted that, due to circumstances beyond my
control, they have been raised in Saudi Arabia. Throughout these past
years of separation from my children, the Saudi Government helped me a
great deal in negotiating with my ex-husband towards visitation. When I
was imprisoned, I was treated just like the other women both Saudi
nationals and ex-patriots alike. More importantly, my son recognizes
that I have done more than the impossible and, in the process, have not
condemned his religion or nationality.
Please contact me if you have any questions or if you are in need
of additional information.
Very truly yours,
Kristine Uhlman/UmHani.
______
Jeffery A. Waymire,
Indianapolis, Indiana,
September 28, 1998.
Senator Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Helms: The following is a very brief compilation of
the events surrounding the international abduction of my daughter Celia
Ann Waymire. I would very much appreciate having my case submitted and
placed on the record as part of the proceedings on the October 1, 1998
special meeting on the matter of International Child Abduction held by
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Please contact me with any questions on this matter or if you wish
to discuss it further.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jeffery A. Waymire.
______
hague application case for celia ann waymire
Submitted by Her Father, Jeffery A. Waymire, September 28, 1998
I have been attempting to gain access to my daughter Celia Ann
Waymire since October 13, 1996, to no avail. I have encountered various
hurdles in the process that have ultimately led to the mother of my
daughter taking her and fleeing the state of Indiana and the United
States. While ideally a joint custody arrangement would have been the
best for Celia, her mother has chosen otherwise. Therefore, Celia will
be the one who suffers the most from her mother's actions. Recovering
Celia is the concern. These efforts have been pursued for Celia's
benefit, not with any concern of the consequences or impact or affect
this will have on her mother. I love my daughter and miss her very
much.
Celia was born on November 10, 1994. In May 1997, my daughter was
taken to San Luis Potosi, Mexico, as a means to keep myself and my
family (and even her mother's family) away from Celia. Celia's mother,
Lisa Lee Russell, didn't even trust her own mother enough to let her
watch Celia. Lisa's paranoia about others trying to have power or
control over or affect on Celia caused her to flee to Mexico as a
solution to raise Celia all by herself and to have Celia love her
unconditionally. Never mind that Celia had been in numerous living
locations. Never mind that Celia was not under the care and guidance of
only one relative in a country where she was far removed from any other
relatives or friends. All of this was done because of Lisa's repeated
statement that this is ``what is best for Celia.''
In December 1996, I filed for paternity. In early May, Lisa left
the United States with Celia for Mexico to avoid the paternity hearing.
In mid May 1997 I was awarded paternity and at the hearing, Lisa's
mother, Lillian Russell appeared on my behalf and verified my
testimony. In June 1997 I filed for custody. In July 1997 I was awarded
custody of Celia Ann Waymire. In October 1997 I had filed for an
Article 15 Determination. In December 1997 I was awarded an Article 15
Determination by Judge James Payne of Marion Superior Court, Juvenile
Division in Indianapolis, Indiana, to aid in my proper filing of the
Hague Convention Application. On December 15, 1997, I forwarded my
completed Hague package to Mr. Christopher Lamora of the U.S. State
Department, Office of children's Issues. Mr. Lamora in turn forwarded
my Hague package to the Mexican Central Authority on December 17, 1997.
Since December 1997, Mr. Lamora and I, along with assistance from
Embassy staff in Mexico have been attempting to ascertain the status of
my Hague Application. The latest update I have from Mr. Lamora from
September 11 of this year is as follows:
``I've asked Rosa Isela Guerrero three times now within the
past two and a half weeks for any further information, and each
time, she says she'll get it to me ASAP. My last written
communication from her, as I told you over the phone at the
time, was on the 19th of August, when she told me that Celia's
file had been forwarded to the San Luis Potosi (SLP) court. In
that same fax, she also stated that the Mexican Central
Authority had spoken with the DIF attorney handling the case,
Ms. Magdalena Gonzalez Vega, who said that she would expedite
the case. She has supposedly tried to follow-up since then, but
not been able to get Ms. Gonzalez on the phone.''
``The Mexican Central Authority is currently moving offices,
and I've been unable to reach them by phone since last Friday.
They are supposedly going to retain the same phone numbers
they've always had. We'll see. If I can get them by mid-week
next week and they haven't sent me new contact information,
I'll have the consular folks from our Embassy get in touch with
the SRE (Foreign Ministry) to find out the new contact info.''
``I do agree with you that there is an increased risk of
Lisa's finding out about what's going on the longer this drags
on, but there's not a lot I can do to force the SLP court's
hand. For now, I think, we've got to assume that no news, while
frustrating, is good news.''
I have not seen or held or talked to my daughter since October 13,
1996. The last photograph I have of her is nine months old. I have sole
custody of my daughter. My Hague Application has been in the hands of
the Mexican Central Authority for nine months. For the record, I would
like the case of Celia Ann Waymire placed as part of the special
meeting to be held October 1, 1998, by the Committee on Foreign
Relations as a matter of International Child Abduction that needs to be
discussed and resolved.
I realize that the Hague Application for my daughter is just one of
many outstanding cases at this time. Any and all efforts you make on my
behalf on this matter are greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Jeffery A. Waymire.
______
Jean Henderson,
Miami, Florida ,
November 30, 1998.
Senator Jesse Helms,
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Dirksen Building, Washington, D.C. .
Dear Senator Helms: As the parent of a child who is the victim of
an international parental abduction, I thank you for you time and
efforts on the behalf of children and ``left-behind'' parents. Our case
is one that you referred to in your opening remarks to the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee on October first of this year. I am the
mother who traveled to the Republic of Czechoslovakia in search of my
child.
His father, Randell Lamar Henderson, abducted our son, Roman Lamar
Henderson in early June of 1994. I have had no contact with my little
boy since that time.
I have made an attempt to make this letter to you as brief as
possible. However, it is difficult to summarize nearly four and one
half years of personal experiences. I cannot fully express the pain and
heartache that the ``disappearance'' of my only child has caused. The
bits and pieces of information that have been gathered over the past
years have compounded my concern. While reading this information,
please keep in mind that my son Roman, his father Randell and I are
citizens of only the U.S.A.
Throughout my search, I have discovered that I must be the driving
force and, basically, lead investigator in our case. Please do not
misunderstand. I would do ANYTHING to bring Roman safely home. However,
there are certain issues that must be handled by U.S. law enforcement
and governmental entities. It is in this respect that I have
encountered some problems. Sir, please bear with me as I give you an
overview of our case.
December 8, 1993: Judge Jennifer Bailey, as an alternate for
Judge Eugene Fierro in the Circuit Court for the 1 1th Judicial
Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida signed a restraining
order ``preventing'' Randell from removing Roman from Dade
County. This Judge denied my attorney's motion to require
Randell to surrender Roman's passport to the court, as she
believed that the restraining order was sufficient. Our court
case number is: 93-27043 FC 26.
June 5-14 of 1994: Randell fled from the U.S.A. while I was
attending my brother's wedding in Massachusetts. His attorney
had filed a motion preventing Roman from traveling to
Massachusetts with me as had previously been planned.
June 14, 1994: I filed a missing person report with the
Miami City Police Department--Missing Juveniles' Division. At
this time, I gave Detective Bernabe photographs and several
names, addresses and telephone numbers as contacts for
Randell's acquaintances here in Miami. Repeatedly, to this
date, Detective Bernabe has told me that he has not had the
time to investigate our case. He appeared to be of the opinion
that, since I believed that Roman had been taken from this
country, there was little that he could do. Therefore, I went
to speak to these people on my own. All that I learned was that
they had, indeed, left the U.S.A. However, their destination
and mode of travel remained a mystery.
June of 1994: I contacted the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and was told that I must have
full custody of my child before this organization could become
involved in our case.
November 18, 1994: Two unidentified men went to a store
where I had been working when Roman was last in Miami. They
told a horrifying story about how Roman had approached them in
a park and had pleaded with them to ``put him in their bags and
take him to his mother in Miami''. Finally, the men agreed to
attempt to find me and to inform me of Roman's whereabouts.
Roman told these men that his father was ``doing more drugs
than ever before'' and had threatened to kill him if he tried
to contact his mother again. Unfortunately, a language barrier
led the store employees to believe that Roman was in London or
Paris at that time. We later learned that he was in Prague in
the Republic of Czechoslovakia. I have an affidavit from one of
these employees.
November 18, 1994: With the affidavit in hand, my attorney
requested an emergency meeting with Judge Eugene Fierro. The
Judge signed a court order giving me full temporary custody of
Roman along with a request that all law enforcement officers
(both nationally and internationally) cooperate in the search
for Roman and his return to me in Miami. He included a pick-up
order for Roman.
November of 1994: Meredith Morrison, who is our caseworker
at the NCMEC, became involved in our case. She put me in touch
with reunite, a missing children's organization in London.
These people were very thorough and helpful. However, Roman and
Randell were not there. Please note that Meredith, along with
all of the staff at the NCMEC, has been incredibly supportive,
concerned and knowledgeable throughout these past years.
November of 1994: I contacted the FBI in Miami. Special
Agent Clay Price, although he generally does not handle
international cases, became involved in our case. I was later
informed that the FBI did not, initially, believe that Roman
had been taken from the U.S.A. At this time, I began, under
this agent's direction, to document all contacts that I have
made concerning my search for Roman.
March 27, 1995: Detective Bernabe completed an affidavit
that was the basis for a third degree felony warrant for
Randell's arrest. This warrant (#95000522) was issued by the
State of Florida for ``unlawful removal of a child from the
state contrary to court order''. Barbara Pineiro, who is an
Assistant Attorney for the State Florida, told me that Florida
has agreed to pay any and all extradition costs. She also told
me that most abducting parents receive ``only a slap on the
wrist'' for their crime(s). However, due to the extenuating
circumstances in our particular case, she would personally do
her best to ensure that Randell is prosecuted to the fullest
extent of the law.
April of 1995: I had been calling the numbers of Randell's
friends throughout the world. I learned from Marco Martinovic
in Denmark that Randell had called him from Brussels, Belgium
in the summer of 1994. Randell had told him that he and Roman
would be coming to Denmark soon and asked if they could stay
with him for a short time. Sadly, they never arrived there.
However, this man has agreed to contact me if he should hear
from them again. He and another friend named Holly told me that
Randell had not given Roman proper medical treatment when he
was injured by a fall. They said that Randell preferred to
``sit around and smoke marijuana''. Only when an infection led
to a high fever, did Randell seek medical assistance for our
child. I contacted the Danish Central Authority. A quick and
thorough investigation was performed. To our dismay, no further
information was learned other than that Roman often ``appeared
to be depressed''.
August 1, 1995: Cynthia Clark, a woman who lives in Miami,
called after seeing a missing child poster that I had placed in
a local store. She had known Roman and Randell in Prague in the
Republic of Czechoslovakia while vacationing there throughout
the summer of 1994. She told us that Roman and his father were
sleeping in parks, under a bridge, in youth hostels and with
anyone who would take them in. She gave me a photograph of
Roman with a Rastafarian man, which was taken in a park in
Prague. This man told Cynthia that he had taken it upon himself
to take care of Roman as his father did not always do so
properly. Randell, who was doing hair wraps (i.e. braiding hair
with colored string and beads) on the Charles Bridge was
friendly toward her until he learned that she was from Miami.
After he learned this, he would not allow Roman to speak with
Cynthia at all. Cynthia also told us that Randell spent his
free time smoking marijuana with a group of people. Roman, who
should have been attending school, was with him. I related this
information to Agent Price. He felt that this was a ``cold
lead''. Who would expect a father and son to continue to live
on the streets for more than one year? They must have been in
transit. Therefore, this was never investigated.
Christmas of 1995: A few days after Christmas, Randell's
sister, Pam McMahon, called me from Alabama to tell me that an
unidentified woman had called their mother on Christmas day.
This woman continued to call for a few minutes each time over
the next several days. Martha Henderson, Randell's mother, told
her that there is a warrant for Randell's arrest in Florida and
that the FBI had interviewed his family. Randell never spoke
directly to a family member. They did not speak to Roman
either. Martha Henderson suggested to this woman that Roman be
returned to Alabama and she would then attempt to obtain legal
custody of our child because Randell did not want me to have
custody of him. Mrs. Henderson and Randell's brother, Lawrence,
did not want Pam to call me with this information. Not long
after I had reported this information to the FBI, I received a
telephone call from Pam. She told me that her family would sue
me for harassment because the FBI was bothering them to the
extent that her mother was physically ill. Although Randell's
family and I had gotten along well until this point, I was now
the ``enemy''. I requested that Agent Price have a tap and
trace placed on the Hendersons' telephones and that their bank
account records be subpoenaed. He told me that a tap and trace
requires expensive and sophisticated equipment that our ``case
does not warrant''. Agent Price said that we must have a ``very
good reason'' to request bank records. He also told me that
Western Union drafts, etc. couldn't be tracked without a
specific draft number.
January 16 and 18, 1996: Randell made five separate
telephone calls to me at home. He kept the calls very brief
each time as he said he feared that my telephone line was being
traced. During the first two calls, Randell was very
disoriented. He could not maintain a conversation and was
continually repeating himself and stuttering. Basically, he
told me that ``this has to end'', ``Roman needs to be in
school'', ``Roman misses and loves me'' and ``Roman is angry
with me because I am responsible for the issuance of the arrest
warrant for his father. There was no reasoning with him. I told
him that all he had to do was return to Florida with Roman and
all of the charges would be dropped. Randell told me that he
and Roman ``have a wonderful life in Columbia, South America''
and that he was only calling me now because they were away from
home on ``holiday''. He said that he would call me again in two
or three weeks when he was away from home ``on business''. He
has never called me again. I asked Agent Price to tap and trace
my telephone line and was told, once again, that our case does
not warrant this type of action. I even offered to pay for it
myself! I called Florida Assistant State Attorney Barbara
Pineiro who drafted a letter to Randell that explained that all
charges would be dropped if he were to return Roman to my
custody in Miami. I sent a copy of this letter to Randell's
sister.
April 15, 1997: Agent Clay Price told me that he had
requested that the blue notice for Randell be upgraded to a red
notice. This should take about six weeks.
May 8, 1997: Kim, a Canadian citizen, called the Missing
Children's Network in Canada. She had seen a poster of Roman in
a Subway restaurant in Montreal. Kim had known Roman and
Randell in Prague throughout 1995 and had spoken to Randell
again in the summer of 1996. (NOTE: Kim did not see Roman in
the summer of 1996. She was told that Rome was in a summer camp
and also was told that he was with friends in a more northern
part of the Czech Republic). This woman provided us with an
incredible amount of information! Kim had a photograph of Roman
and herself, which she gave to Patrick Bergeron at the Canadian
Missing Children's Network. She said that Roman and his father
were living within a hippie-type community and lived what would
be considered to be a Bohemian lifestyle. She said that many
people told her that they had taken it upon themselves to take
proper care of Roman. Randell purchased only the least
expensive foods for Roman (i.e. bread and cheese). Roman, who
speaks the Czech language fluently (his father does not),
rarely played with other children, had only a borrowed soccer
ball as a toy and did not attend school. Kim also said that she
is nearly certain, based on his appearance and demeanor, that
Randell is a heroin addict. Randell had invited her to visit an
underground bar with him. This bar was ``by invitation only''
and Kim was given the impression that this was a place where
illegal drugs were used and, possibly, dealt. It was her
personal opinion that this ``establishment'' was connected in
some manner with the Mafia. Kim also stated that Randell
appeared to be involved with a Czech woman named Katia. She
said that Roman and Randell stayed with Katia at times, with
other people and were known to be ``squatters,'' who are
individuals who sleep in abandoned homes in Prague. Randell
also told Kim that he and a friend would soon be opening an
Indian import/export business in Prague. She gave us business
cards that she believed were from establishments that Randell
frequented and also mentioned a few bars, stores and parks
where Roman and Randell often went. When Kim met them, Randell
was earning money doing hair wraps. I regret that this same
information from Cynthia Clark in August of 1995 had not been
investigated.
May 8, 1997: I contacted Agent Price with this information.
He said that he must contact the FBI legate in Vienna, Austria.
The legate will, in turn, contact INTERPOL in Prague. The major
concern was that the Republic of Czechoslovakia did not, at
that time, recognize parental abduction as an extraditable
crime. (Note: The Republic of Czechoslovakia became a Hague
signatory in October of 1998.) Agent Price hoped that we could
have Randell deported, hopefully with Roman, as an
``undesirable'' due to his fugitive status in the U.S.A. He
sent color photographs and all pertinent information to Vienna.
Agent Price told me that the investigators in Vienna had ninety
days to investigate and report any information that was
learned. He urged me not to go to the Czech Republic ``on a
wild goose chase''. Let the officials determine if my son was
presently in Prague.
July 3, 1997: Agent Price received the first report from
Prague (via Vienna). They had learned that Randell had been
granted a document (visa) which allowed him to stay in the
Czech Republic for one year. This document had expired on
January 3, 1997 and had not been renewed. Roman was not
mentioned on this document. All inquiries in Prague were being
made discreetly so as not to alert Randell. Much to our
astonishment, Randell and Roman were using their full, legal
names. We were perplexed as to what travel! identification
documents they were using because their U.S. passports had
expired. Agent Price told me that there was no information from
U.S. Passport Services in regard to the renewal and/or use of
their passports. I began planning to travel to the Czech
Republic. Too much time was passing.
July 15, 1997: I contacted Barbara Pineiro at the Florida
State Attorney's Office. She gave me an updated letter, which
was addressed to Randell. Mrs. Pineiro said that it might be
helpful if I should speak to Randell. She also told me that she
would be willing to speak with Randell and/or the Czech
authorities.
July 20, 1997: Agent Clay Price told me that the Czech
authorities had reported to Vienna that the address Randell had
written on the application for a long-term stay was that of a
general area and that they could not find any school records
for Roman. Agent Price also told me that, due to the red notice
for Randell, INTERPOL had sent information and photographs of
Roman and his father to all Czech border officials. The FBI has
Randell's fingerprints on file due to juvenile offenses for
assault with a deadly with weapon and drug charges. Agent Price
said that he is very frustrated by the rate at which our case
is moving along and, if he were allowed to do so, he would
travel to Prague. He believed that he could locate Roman and
Randell in an afternoon!
July 22, 1997: I spoke to Meredith Morrison (NCMEC) who had
just had a conversation with Cynthia Quinn, (INTERPOL). Ms.
Quinn had told Meredith that the FBI had sent her a request for
an upgrade to a red notice in April of 1997. This process
requires about six months before it is completed! Ms. Quinn
also told Meredith that she had sent out a diffusion notice
with the information that the blue notice would be upgraded to
a red one. Cynthia Quinn said that I could not speak with her
because she is not allowed to speak directly with parents.
July 30, 1997: I asked Agent Price to contact Detective
Steven Yoder who handles international extradition cases for
the Metro-Dade Police Department. Detective Yoder had contacted
the U.S. Office of International Affairs and was told that they
had no information on Roman and Randell, so he had sent the
information to Mary Jo Grottenrath.
August 4, 1997: I was put into contact with Mr. Bruce
Berckmans who does private investigation work. He made several
telephone calls and faxed information to the Czech Prime
Minister and Czech Minister of the Interior along with the U.S.
Ambassador to the Czech Republic. Mr. Berckmans did this
without compensation.
September 3, 1997: Agent Clay Price spoke, for the first
time, to Kim, the Canadian woman who had called in May of 1997,
to report the sighting of Roman and Randell in Prague. Each
time one of us had spoken to Kim, we had learned more
information.
November 3, 1997: Mr. Charles Goolsby, who is with the Voice
of America (VOA), contacted me. He told me that he would air
VGA and Worldnet radio and television broadcasts featuring
Roman and Randell in the Republic of Czechoslovakia and
throughout Eastern Europe. He told me that when he had
contacted the Miami City Police Department--Missing Juveniles
Division, he was told that they had no such case! I called
Detective Bernabe and explained this to him. He said that he
would make certain that would never happen again. I thought
that I would tell you this to help to make it clear how
difficult it is for ``left-behind'' parents. There is always
something to be done, clarified, etc. I have learned that I
must always keep ``on top of'' our case and constantly monitor
what has been done or what more could be done. Mr. Gooslby has
been incredibly helpful, supportive and knowledgeable
throughout my search,
November 10, 1997: Agent Price told me that he had recently
attended a U.S. Department of Justice conference in Toronto,
Canada. When he had asked about the International Parental
Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993 (IPKCA), he was told that, due to
the UFAP warrant that has been issued, this additional federal
warrant would be placing Randell in double jeopardy. Agent
Price also told me that the UFAP allows for a provisional
arrest request to be issued. He pointed out to me that the
penalties in Florida are higher than those with the federal
warrant. Therefore, he has not requested this particular
warrant. Cynthia Quinn told him that the red notice has not
been issued yet. It was now seven months since this upgrade had
been requested.
November 22, 1997: Friends and I held a benefit car wash to
help me to raise money for travel to the Republic of
Czechoslovakia. NBC local news gave us a lot of coverage.
December 1, 1997: I called Mary Jo Grotenrath with the U.S.
Office of International Affairs. She was shocked and dismayed
to learn that, although it had been received two weeks
beforehand, the request for a search and arrest had never been
sent to the Republic of Czechoslovakia. She said that this was
inexcusable and she would take care of it immediately.
December 12, 1997: I called Mr. James Bacigalupo, who is the
Regional Security Officer (DSS) at the U.S. Embassy in Prague.
He transferred my call to Kimberly Krhounek, who was the
Assistant Consul General in the U.S. Embassy there. Mr.
Bacigalupo told me that, if I was not satisfied with the aid
given to me, I should call him again.
December 12, 1997: Ms. Krhounek suggested that I travel to
Prague. The child protective service there would intervene if a
truant, endangered, neglected, and/or abused child's actual
whereabouts were reported to them. She told me to feel free to
call her at any time. She would help in any way that she could.
In the meantime, Ms. Krhounek would work with Mr. Bacigalupo to
involve the local police to ensure that a thorough
investigation was performed. She also said that the Republic of
Czechoslovakia is not a part of the European Union (i.e. Free
Europe), therefore a passport is required to travel to and from
that country. Additionally, all aliens are required to have a
green card to work in the Czech Republic.
December 15, 1997: I called Mr. Scott Stewart, who was then
working for the U.S. Department of State (DSS) in Miami,
Florida. He told me that Roman and Randell had renewed their
U.S. passports in the U.S. Embassy in Prague in May of 1996! He
gave me the new passport numbers along with the expiration
dates. It appears that Randell had gone to the U.S. Embassy on
two separate occasions as Roman's new passport expires on 6/19/
200 1 while Randell's expires on 6/11/2006. I gave these
numbers to Detective Bernabe so that he could enter them into
the NCIC. Mr. Stewart could not help too much more because he
handles only cases involving passport fraud. However, he did
request copies of the passport renewal applications.
December 15, 1997: I called FBI Agent Price to tell him that
Roman and his father had renewed their passports more than one
and a half years ago! He was astonished and doubtful. He told
me that there must be a mistake because, with the yellow and
blue notices in place, the FBI would have been alerted. I gave
him the new passport numbers for verification.
December 15, 1997: I called Mr. Bacigalupo about the
passport renewals. He said that the yellow and blue notices had
never been entered into the U.S. Department of State databank.
They were only in the FBI databank. This explained how Randell
was allowed to renew their passports without any problems.
December 15, 1997: I called Agent Price about the yellow and
blue notices not being entered in the U.S. Department of State
databank. He told me that these notices were not in effect when
the passports were renewed (i.e. 1996), so it's irrelevant.
This is incorrect. Cynthia Quinn and Mary Jo Grotenrath had
verified that these notices were effective as of June of 1995!
I saw no point in arguing the issue with Agent Price. It was
already too late. My son could (and should) have been found
and, hopefully, returned home in May of 1996. So that there
would be no interference with the Czech investigation, Agent
Price asked me to have all of the people who I had involved
``back-off'' because, with the most recently received
information, Roman should be home within two to three weeks. I
did so.
January 12, 1998: I called Agent Price again. He said that
he doubts that a provisional arrest warrant has been issued
because this requires that the exact location of the fugitive
be known. He also told me that he knows for certain that the
local Czech authorities are investigating and not to worry
because Randell will be arrested based on the red notice. I
asked Clay to be certain that Roman and Randell's new passport
numbers had been entered in the databanks of the U.S.
Department of State, INTERPOL, etc.
January 16, 1998: Meredith Morrison (NCMEC) called to tell
me that she had just spoken to Cynthia Quinn (INTERPOL). The
request for an upgrade to a red notice was still sitting on her
supervisor's desk awaiting his signature. Hopefully, this will
be accomplished within the next week. In the meantime, Ms.
Quinn had sent out cables to all European countries requesting
that they track any activity on Roman and his father's new
passport numbers.
January 20, 1998: Detective Bernabe (Miami Police
Department) told me that he had passed information to Agent
Price about a tip that they had received that Roman was in
Prague.
January 23, 1998: A man named John, who is Jennifer
Litshewski's (U.S. Office of International Affairs) legal
assistant, called me on her behalf to ask about the information
that I have in regard to Roman and Randell's ``alleged''
passport renewals. Although dismayed that I must provide this
information to these people, I gave him the new passport
numbers, expiration and renewal dates. He said that his office
could find no indication that their passports had been renewed!
John told me that the U.S. Department of State was planning to
revoke Roman and Randell's passports.
January 26, 1998: 1 called Agent Price and he told me that
the revocation of the new passports is moving along quickly. If
the revoked passports are presented, Randell will, most likely,
be sent to the nearest U.S. Embassy where he will be arrested.
The current ``look-out'' on their passports with the U.S.
Department of State will not allow for their being detained,
but the FBI will be alerted as to their location. When I asked
if INTERPOL had run a trace on the new passport numbers, Agent
Price said that he had no idea if that had been done, but
``red-flagged'' fugitives have escaped detection many times in
the past.
Late January of 1998: I sent letters to Florida Senator Bob
Graham and to the U.S. Secretary of State, Madeline Albright,
who is a Czech national. To date, these requests for aid have
not been answered.
January 28, 1998: I purchased two roundtrip tickets to fly
on February 4, 1998 from Miami to Prague. I felt that the eight
months that had passed since it had last been reported that
Roman was in Prague were more than sufficient time to allow for
a thorough investigation by authorities! A friend, David
Solomon, agreed to accompany me. These tickets cost a little
under $1000.00, which is considered to be a very low fare due
to the off-season in Prague. I was told that Roman's return
fare, if needed, would cost $800.00 if I purchased a roundtrip
ticket and $1800.00 for a one-way fare. I then contacted Agent
Price, the U.S. Embassy in Prague, Jennifer Litshewski, The
Missing Children's Network in Canada and Meredith Morrison, who
I asked to relate the information about my travel plans to
Cynthia Quinn. I made it clear to everyone that we were not
going to attempt a ``snatch-back'' or violate any laws. I would
not do anything to endanger my son. Mr. James Bacigalupo and
Kimberly Krhounek invited us to meet with them at the U.S.
Embassy in Prague.
February 5, 1998: David Soloman and I arrived in Prague. We
got a room in a bed and breakfast establishment. The
receptionist gave us a detailed map of Prague along with
directions to many of the places where Cynthia Clark and Kim
had told us Roman and/or Randell had often gone. We did not
disclose our reason for visiting these locations. David, who
has never met either Roman or Randell, and I decided that, if
questioned, it would be best for him to represent himself as''
a friend of a friend'' of Roman and Randell`s. Roman's mother
would never be mentioned.
February 6, 1998: David and I went to the U.S. Embassy and
met with Ms. Krhounek and Mr. Bacigalupo. We inquired about
local laws and Ms. Krhounek told us that there is no Czech law
against searching for anybody. On a map, we found the physical
address that Randell had used on his passport renewal
application. Mr. Bacigalupo expressed concern that our
activities may interfere with the local investigation and,
therefore, asked that we proceed cautiously. He also told us
that he would try to arrange for us to meet with Ing. Radek
Prchal (INTERPOL), who has been assigned to our case in Prague.
February 6, 1998: David went to Old Towne Square, a major
tourist area, which precedes the Charles Bridge where Randell
had been working as a street vendor. David, who carried a
photograph of Roman that had been taken when he was eight years
old, asked the vendors for Roman and Randell. Incredibly, in
less than twenty minutes, David had spoken to three vendors who
recognized them immediately! These vendors described Randell as
having shoulder-length brown hair and a scar between his eyes.
These men also said that Randell leaves Prague in the winter
and ``goes to sea where it is warm''. Due to language barriers,
David could not determine if these men knew if Roman had
traveled with Randell or the name and/or type of vessel that
he/they had traveled on. Most of their communication was
accompanied by hand and body gestures. These individuals all
stated that they had not seen either Roman or Randell in four
to six months. I was very upset to learn this. If I had not
waited so long for the official investigation, I would have
arrived in Prague when my son was still there. I could, at the
very least, have had contact with my child, if not have
convinced Randell to allow Roman to return to the U.S.A. with
me. David then went to the Charles Bridge where, in no time at
all, he had spoken to several vendors (mostly artists) who knew
Roman and his father well. Fortunately, many of these men spoke
fluent English. From these individuals, David learned that
Roman and Randell had been living in an apartment on the other
side of the bridge, which is an area of Prague called Male-
Stranna. We recognized this as an area where Kim (Canadian
caller) had reported that Randell and Roman sometimes lived,
went grocery shopping and was where the underground bar was
located. These people also said that Randell and Roman ``go to
sea'' in the winter. One man told David that, recently, the
local police had been preventing Randell from braiding hair on
the Charles Bridge, as they did not consider this to be art.
Therefore, Randell had begun braiding hair on side streets.
Also, Randell would begin to braid hair, at times, on the
bridge and would simply walk away if a police officer
approached.
February 7, 1998: David and I purchased tickets for the
Metro (i.e. underground train) to travel to Za-navsi 2451,
which is the physical address that Randell had given on his
passport renewal application. I stayed in a local restaurant
while David went to the apartment building. Please note that I,
for the most part, did not accompany David while he spoke to
people. We did not want to take a chance that Randell, if
nearby, would recognize me. Outside of this apartment building,
David, initially without any success, asked two separate people
if they knew Roman and Randell. He then went to a nearby
gymnasium where he spoke to a group of children. One boy
recognized Roman and led David back to the apartment building.
David then approached a couple in their mid-fifties. David said
that the woman ``nearly fell over'' when he showed her Roman's
photograph. Using broken English and hand gestures, the woman
told David that Roman and his father had lived in their
apartment with their daughter. She adamantly stated that her
daughter and Randell ``were no more--never again to be
together''. She also said that Roman and Randell had left for
Poland about six months ago. The man refused to speak to--or
even acknowledge--David at all. Both of these people became
very upset at the mention of Randell's name and the woman had
tears in her eyes when she looked at Roman's photograph. This
woman identified herself as ``Yitka''.
February 8, 1998: I stayed on the ``Prague side'' of the
Charles Bridge while David went to Male-Stranna. He spoke to a
thirteen-year-old girl, who in exchange for a cigarette,
offered to take David to a bar where Randell and Roman often
went. When David went into a nearby store to buy cigarettes, he
discovered that the clerks also knew Roman and Randell! The
girl took David to this bar, which is named Malostranska
Beseda. With the girl translating for him, David learned from
the bar's owner that Randell was in his bar every night when he
was in Male-Stranna. Also, he pointed in a certain direction to
indicate a flat where Randell had been living. However, the
owner of the bar said that Randell had told him that he had
``given up his flat'' and was ``leaving Prague''. He was not
certain of the time frame and had no idea where Randell was
going.
February 9, 1998: I called Mr. Bacigalupo and he said that
he had arranged for us to meet with INTERPOL Agent Prchal on
February 11 . Mr. Bacigalupo was upset that David had asked so
many questions and asked us to do no more until after our
meeting with INTERPOL.
February 9, 1998: I called Meredith Morrison and she said
that Cynthia Quinn had told her that the red notice request had
not been signed as of yet! As I feared that the FBI/INTERPOL
would cancel the investigation if it was learned that Roman and
his father were, supposedly, not currently in Prague, I decided
not to contact Agent Price at this time.
February 11, 1998: David and I went to the U.S. Embassy to
meet with Mr. Bacigalupo and Kim Krhounek for our meeting with
INTERPOL. We exchanged photographs and information with Ing.
Prchal. He told us that Randell had been arrested for ``assault
with a deadly weapon'' in Prague in 1995, but did not go into
detail as to the results of this arrest. Ing. Prchal also told
us that Randell was a known heroine abuser/dealer in Prague,
but this information was given to us in a ``matter-of-fact''
manner. Apparently, heroin use is not a serious crime in the
Republic of Czechoslovakia. Ing. Prchal told me that the legate
in Vienna, Austria had requested that his investigation be very
discreet. He was not to do anything that would possibly alert
Randell that he was being sought. Therefore, he was limited to
inquiring through government channels as to Roman's enrollment
in school, social services (including orphanages), medical and
dental records, any visas, marriage licenses, etc. This would
not allow him to request that any local investigators question
individuals. He also said that, without a red notice, his
``hands are tied''. Ing. Prchal made it very clear to me that
he was willing to thoroughly investigate and to arrest/
extradite Randell and return Roman to my custody once the red
notice was in place. He agreed to contact INTERPOL Agent
Cynthia Quinn directly. I gave Ing. Prchal many contact numbers
in the U.S.A. Ing. Prchal told me that, if Randell re-enters
the Republic of Czechoslovakia without applying for a long-term
stay, he will be in the country illegally and will, therefore,
be subject to deportation. I must mention that I was shocked to
see the ``photographs'' of Roman and Randell that had been sent
to Ing. Prchal. They were wallet-sized, blotchy, blurred,
black-and-white facsimile images. I would be hard-pressed to
recognize my child or Randell from those images! At the
conclusion of our meeting, Mr. Bacigalupo and Ing. Prchal told
us that, although we had given them very valuable information,
it would be best for us to not make any more inquiries to avoid
interfering with the local investigation.
February 12, 1998: I called Agent Price to give him an
update. He said that he is very frustrated by the lack of
progress and action on our case. Also, he had learned last week
that the U.S. Department of State had revoked Roman and
Randell's new passports. Additionally, Cynthia Quinn had
recently told him that the request for an upgrade to a red
notice was still sitting on her supervisor's desk awaiting his
signature. They are too backlogged to get to this! Agent Price
told me that he had attempted to impress upon Ms. Quinn how
important the red notice is due to the fact that I was
presently in Prague and to remind her that he had requested
this upgrade ten months ago. Agent Price suggested that,
perhaps, Meredith Morrison and/or Ing. Prchal could obtain
quicker results from Cynthia Quinn. He gave me the emergency
number for the Miami FBI Office in case I should need to
contact him urgently.
February 12, 1998: I called Ing. Prchal to explain how
important it was that he contact Cynthia Quinn. He said that he
would do so as soon as the time difference allowed and that he
would straighten this out with her. He reiterated that I should
feel free to contact him at any time with any problems and/or
questions that I should encounter.
February 15, 1998: Special notation: Today was Roman's
twelve birthday. The fourth birthday that had passed since I
last saw my son.
February 16, 1998: Ing. Prchal called me at our hotel to ask
if I would be willing to sign a release form that would allow
for Roman's photograph and information to be aired on Czech
television. This was the first time in the history of the
Republic of Czechoslovakia that a missing child would be
featured on television! As no red notice/provisional arrest
warrant or request had been issued for Randell, he could not
legally include photographs of him. Please recognize, once
again, that my personal difficulties have not been with foreign
governments, but with my own country! Ing. Prchal told me that
he had spoken to Cynthia Quinn who had assured him that the red
notice application would be signed within the next day or two.
Cynthia Quinn had told Ing. Prchal that both Roman and
Randell's U.S. passports had been revoked on April 15, 1997.
One must wonder why the FBI agent had only learned of these
revocations in early February of 1998? Which passports had been
revoked? The initial, expired ones or the new ones?
February 17, 1998: David and I flew back to the U.S.A.
February 19, 1998: Meredith Morrison (NCMEC) contacted Ing.
Prchal via e-mail. Ing. Prchal told Meredith that Roman's
search information had already been broadcast on television and
had been printed in the Czech national newspapers.
February 19, 1998: Patrick Bergeron (Missing Children's
Network in Canada) had spoken to his contact in Poland. This
individual said that it is unlikely, in any European country,
that a revoked U.S. passport will be detected unless its owner
travels on an airplane. He agreed to distribute posters of
Roman and his father in Poland.
February 19, 1998: Charles Goolsby called to tell me that
VOA can air broadcasts throughout the Mediterranean and has
already aired broadcasts in Poland in both English and Polish.
Mr. Goolsby has always reacted very quickly to the changes in
our case!
February 23, 1998: I called Jennifer Litshewski. She said
that she believes that both Roman and Randell's passports have
been revoked. She does not know what happens when a revoked
passport is presented other than that the passport holder would
not be allowed to travel. However, the cable that she had sent
out explained why the passports were revoked. The U.S. Embassy
in Prague will detect the revocations.
February 23, 1998: I called FBI Agent Price to ask him if he
thought that I should attempt to contact Mr. Luke Von Johnston
and his associate, Costas, in Johannesburg, South Africa. These
people have been sailing companions of Randell's for many
years. I had an address and telephone number for Mr. Von
Johnston. Agent Price said that it is worth a try. He will try
to determine what contacts the FBI has on the African
continent. He also told me that a revoked passport will be
confiscated and that Randell will be detained while Roman is
placed in protective custody until I arrive to bring him home.
Agent Price said that this should ``hold true on a worldwide
basis'' due to the information in the U.S. Department of State
databank. He also told me that he would contact Ing. Prchal in
Prague.
February 23, 1998: I was unsuccessful in my attempt to
contact Mr. Von Johnston. The telephone number that I had was
disconnected. The operator in Johannesburg told me that there
is no listing under his name and that it is not possible for
her to find a telephone number by an address only.
March 12, 1998: Agent Price called to tell me that Patrick
Bergeron, the Director of Search for the Missing Children's
Network in Canada, had written a ``nasty'' letter to Janet Reno
about how our case had been handled by the FBI. This letter had
been forwarded to Agent Price's supervisor in Miami. There will
be a congressional inquiry. Mr. Price was very upset about
this. He told me that he had done his best but was ``only as
good as the people backing him''. Although he understood my
frustration and had felt the same frustration, this was causing
him a lot of ``personal grief. Agent Price said he believes
that he has given me ``a fair shot''. I expressed doubt that
Mr. Bergeron had intended to harm anyone by writing a letter. I
was not even aware that it had been written. I told him that I
would discuss the letter with Mr. Bergeron.
March 13, 1998: Samantha Edwards, who was with reunite (a
missing child organization in London, U.K.) called to tell me
that she had received my letter. She had given the new passport
information to the proper authorities in her country. Ms.
Edwards also said that she would arrange for The National
Missing Person's Helpline (NMPH) to, once again, distribute
posters depicting Roman and Randell throughout Europe. The NMPH
would also air radio and television broadcasts.
March 13, 1998: Meredith Morrison (NCMEC) called to tell me
that she had spoken to a man who is with the U.S. Dept. of
State (DSS) about what action would be taken in a case in which
a citizen's passport had been revoked and a red notice had been
issued. Basically, he told her that the passports are only
revoked on paper. Therefore, the revocation will only be
detected if the document is run through the computer system.
Upon detection, Randell must be ``convinced'' to go to the
nearest U.S. Embassy at which time he would be detained. This
man also said that the red notice is crucial and should have
been requested much earlier in our case. He was kind enough to
contact Mr. Bacigalupo (DSS) and Ing. Prchal (INTERPOL) in
Prague. These men assured him that Randell would be arrested
there if a red notice were in place. Additionally, this DSS
officer spoke to Cynthia Quinn (INTERPOL) who stated that it
would take another two to three months before the red notice
was issued!
March 16, 1998: Mr. Goolsby told me that he had spoken to
Mr. Pat Donovan (DSS) who had said that the Czech authorities
had sent information as to my child's whereabouts to the FBI
legate in Vienna and had not received a response as of this
time. Mary Jo Grotenrath (U.S. Office of International Affairs)
had made the statement that there was ``no hurry'' with the red
notice because Roman and Randell had already been located!
March 23, 1998: I called Ing. Prchal (INTERPOL) and he told
me that a thorough investigation had now been performed in
Prague. The resulting information had been sent to the legate
in Vienna as well as to Cynthia Quinn (INTERPOL) in Washington,
D.C. Ing. Prchal expressed dismay that the red notice had not
been effective back in May of 1997 when the sighting was first
reported. After my visit to Prague, the local investigators had
questioned Randell's ex-girlfriend and her parents. Her parents
had said that they were headed to Poland. Katia, the former
girlfriend, said that they were on their way to Israel! Katia
seemed to believe that they were sailing. It appears that they
may have traveled down the east coast of the African continent,
rounded the cape and then headed up to the Mediterranean. Ing.
Prchal also told me that my visit to Prague had been very
helpful to him and to the local investigators. The color
photographs that I had given him were especially helpful.
March 30, 1998: Detective Steven Yoder (Metro-Dade Police
Dept.--Extraditions Office) called to tell me that all of the
necessary paperwork for issuing a provisional arrest request
had been completed by the Florida State Attorney's Office.
However, his contact at the U.S. Office of International
Affairs--Children's Issues has told him that a red notice is
not enough to allow for Randell's arrest in the Republic of
Czechoslovakia. This is confusing because Ing. Prchal and Mr.
Bacigalupo in Prague have stated several times that a red
notice is all that will be needed to take such action.
April 8, 1998: I spoke to Ann Macegahuey (U.S. Dept. of
State--Children's Issues) who told me that, although we are not
certain that my child is in Israel, she has initiated Hague
action there. She faxed me the required paperwork and told me
we must rush because Israel will ``shut down'' for Passover
soon. These documents included a list of attorneys in Israel.
If Roman is located in Israel, I must hire an attorney there! I
am not eligible for legal aid in Israel because I am ineligible
in Florida. One must have an annual income of $7,000 or less to
receive legal aid in this state! Personally, I don't understand
how a civil proceeding in any country other than the U.S. A.
will help us (if it is even allowed) because we do not have a
legal standing elsewhere. Leslie Kaufman, who is with the
Central Authority in Israel, will retain the paperwork for the
Hague application and will pass it along to any Hague signatory
country if need be. Ann Macegahuey said that she would contact
Mark Klein, my private attorney, to discuss any information
and/or documents that she may require from him. I went to the
courthouse in Miami and purchased the required certified court
documents.
April 14, 1998: Meredith Morrison (NCMEC) called to tell me
that her DSS contact had said that the ``unofficial'' report
from Israel indicates that there is no information that Roman
and his father had ever entered or left this country. However,
an open inquiry, as opposed to a one-time check, had been
requested in Israel and South Africa.
April 17, 1998: Ann Macegahuey called to tell me that alerts
had been cabled to South Africa and Israel. There was no record
of Roman and Randell with airport customs in these countries.
She also said that she needs information on the boat's registry
in order to be more thorough. Ms. Macegahuey also told me that
Randell's passport had definitely been revoked.
April 22, 1998: Ann Macegahuey called again to tell me that
she had sent a cable with copies of Roman and Randell's
photographs to South Africa, Israel and the Republic of
Czechoslovakia. She also said that, due to manpower cutbacks,
she could not send an alert cable anywhere unless there was a
``legitimate reason'' to do so! In other words, we must have
specific information as to their current whereabouts. I don't
mean to sound bitter but, if we had that information, we
wouldn't be in this situation to begin with! When I reiterated
that it is highly likely that they are somewhere in the
Mediterranean on a vessel of some kind, Ms. Macegahuey told me
that she couldn't alert port posts without having the name and/
or registration information of the vessel upon which they are
traveling. This is something that I cannot understand. A cable
and/or FAX could help to find my son. In the computerized age
in which we now live, I don't see why an electronic message
would overly ``strain'' manpower resources. But what do I know
of these bureaucratic issues? I am simply a mother who is
desperately searching for her only child. Ms. Macegahuey said
that she believes that Roman and his father are using false
identification and travel documents and, therefore, are not
being located. This theory makes no sense at all to me. If
Randell had intended to use falsified documents, why would he
risk entering a U.S. Embassy to renew their passports and have
been consistently using Roman's and his legal names? It appears
to me that they have not been located through their passports
because they are not flying and/or because a thorough trace is
not being performed. It is doubtful that Randell would have the
money to spend on airline tickets. Randell and I had lived on a
sailboat for nearly twelve years. Throughout our extensive
travels, customs officials often required only identification
from the vessel's captain along with the boat's registry
information. This is why I adamantly believe that if photos and
information were sent to the ``targeted'' port posts, they may
be recognized. My next goal is to send information to all of
the port posts where I feel that they may travel. I will do
this by utilizing a publication entitled, ``Ports of the
World''. However, I am somewhat doubtful as to what the
reaction from these authorities will be when a request is
received by a private citizen and not by U.S. officials.
Perhaps I am ``grasping at straws'', but I will not sit idly by
when my son's welfare is at stake.
April 28, 1998: After I had read Patrick Bergeron's letter
to Janet Reno, I sent my own letter to her today with a
synopsis of our case. I was hoping to make it clear to Mrs.
Reno that all of the delays, problems, misunderstandings and
oversights that have been encountered in our case could not be
attributed solely to the FBI. I also mentioned that the entire
issue of international parental kidnappings could be dealt with
more effectively if changes were made.
May 11, 1998: I called Maureen Dabbaugh (P.A.R.E.N.T.). She
told me that her experience, as well as that of other parents
with whom she has had contact, has lead her to believe that the
``left-behind'' parent must personally contact customs, border
and port authorities with the information and photographs of
the child and the abductor. I requested one hundred posters
from the NCMEC to accomplish this goal.
May 13, 1998: As I had been required to send my only
official copy of Roman's birth certificate to Israel with the
Hague application, I went to the Dept. of Vital Statistics in
Miami to obtain more copies. The clerk told me that ``there is
a block on this birth certificate''. I must have a court order
to obtain a copy. I then called Darlene Newman in Jacksonville
at the Florida State Dept. of Vital Records. She told me that
the Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement (FDLE) had flagged Roman's
birth certificate. I pointed out that this flag would have been
completely ineffective if Randell or his representative had
requested the birth certificate. Upon being transferred to
Priscilla Smith, a supervisor, I learned that I NEVER should
have been told about the flag on Rome's birth certificate.
Ideally, the clerk would have ``stalled'' me while she
contacted the FBI or another law enforcement agency. Mrs. Smith
said that she would speak with the individuals in the Miami
office about this. Quick calculations of my attorney's $275/
hour fee, court costs, processing, etc. lead me to believe that
this $6.50 copy could easily cost me as much as $500.00! I
decided to attempt an alternate approach to this problem.
May 19, 1998: I was able to reach Gwen Johnson at the FDLE.
She told me that she would ask Pat Rutherford, who is assigned
to our case with FDLE, to request that a copy of Roman's birth
certificate be released to me. I explained that I was more than
willing to show photo identification so as there would be no
concern that I was representing my ex-husband.
May 26, 1998: Meredith Morrison (NCMEC) called to tell me
that she had received a FAX, which was dated May 21, 1998, from
INTERPOL in Lyon, France. It stated that Randell's blue notice
had been upgraded to a red notice. This was a full thirteen
months after Agent Price had requested the upgrade! The reasons
that were given for this upgrade were that: Randell is a
``known drug addict, violent, dangerous and is considered to be
armed and mentally ill''. Please note that Randell had suffered
a mental breakdown in St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands in
March of 1993 after he had learned that his current girlfriend
had, allegedly, spent the night with another man. He had called
me to say that he was going to kill three people and then
himself Between his family and myself, we had managed to
convince him to return to the U.S.A. with Roman and to undergo
therapy. After two weeks of Gestalt Re-decision Therapy,
Randell proclaimed himself to be ``cured''. I later learned
that his therapist had suggested that he continue in therapy.
Randell's mother and sister told me that they were gravely
concerned about Randell. His father was a diagnosed paranoid
schizophrenic who had committed suicide. They said that Randell
had begun, in their opinion, to exhibit many of the behaviors
that his father had shown in the past.
May 27, 1998: Pat Rutherford (FDLE--Missing Children's
Clearinghouse) told me that my request for a copy of Roman's
birth certificate was very ``unusual''. A flag (block) on a
birth certificate is never lifted until after the child has
been located. I explained how important this document would be
when I am able to take physical custody of Roman.
May 28, 1998: Detective Steven Yoder (Metro-Dade
Extradition) told me that he will make certain that the
passport revocations are in effect and that the information has
been entered into all of the appropriate databanks. I was very
concerned that they may ``slip through the cracks' again.
June 3, 1998: I spoke to Mr. Kenneth Jones (Dept. of Vital
Records in Jacksonville, Fl.) who told me that he absolutely
couldn't release a copy of the birth certificate to me without
a court order.
June 8, 1998: FBI Agent Clay Price called to tell me that he
had received another ``nasty'' letter which was, this time,
written to Janet Reno by me! I told him I had written that
letter intending to clarify any misunderstandings as to the
FBI's role surrounding the difficulties with our case. Agent
Price asked me to meet with his supervisors and him at the FBI
Headquarters in Miami. He said that he wanted to demonstrate to
me how much he had done to help to resolve our case. I have no
doubt that he did his best based on his knowledge of these
types of cases. However, regardless of who made errors, my
child should have been home at least by 1996 when his father
had renewed their passports in Prague. These types of errors
must be prevented from occurring in any case. I saw no point in
meeting with these people. There are certain issues upon which
we will never agree. Honestly, this conflict only served to add
to my emotional distress.
May 9, 1998: Charles Goolsby called to tell me that Mary Jo
Grotenrath had said that Roman is not on the FBI's missing
child web page and that I should ask Agent Price why he is not
featured there and if he ever had been placed on that site.
May 22, 1998: I mailed a certified letter to Judge Eugene
Fierro which explained my need for a court order to obtain a
copy of Roman's birth certificate.
May 25, 1998: I received a letter from Mr. Charles Barry
Smith who is the Supervisory Special Agent Unit Chief with the
FBI's Office of Public and Congressional Affairs in Washington,
D.C. Mr. Smith basically wrote to me that he regrets that my
child has not been found and that he understands my
frustration. However, extradition and national sovereignty
issues are factors and the FBI has followed and will continue
to follow all leads and that I may feel free to contact the
Special Agent in charge of my case at any time. Perhaps I am
ignorant of these affairs, but I do not understand how national
sovereignty has any relevancy in a case in which three U.S.
citizens are involved.
July 22, 1998: I received a court order from Judge Fierro
which I mailed to Mr. Jones in Jacksonville along with copies
of my identification and the appropriate fee. Within three
weeks, I received two official copies of Roman's birth
certificate. It had taken me three months and a great deal of
difficulty to obtain these copies! I can understand that
certain measures are necessary to prevent the abductor from
receiving these copies, but I don't understand why, as the
``left-behind'' parent, I must continue to be ``punished'' for
my ex-husband's actions. After all, I'm not the ``bad guy'' in
our case.
October 1, 1998: Mr. Charles Goolsby and I discussed that
there is not a warrant for Randell's arrest based on the
Federal International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993
(IPKCA).
October 9, 1998: I discussed the IPKCA with Meredith
Morrison (NCMEC). She said that, recently, the Center has
experienced difficulties with particular countries that do not
recognize parental abductions as crimes. Nancy Nyak at the
NCMEC said that, if the passport revocations and red notice are
truly in place, nothing else is necessary. These leads me back
to the same question of as to whether or not all of this has,
indeed, been done and properly documented where necessary.
November 11, 1998: When I called FBI Agent Price today, I
heard a different agent's voice mail message. I have learned
that Special Agent Deborah J. Cool has been assigned to our
case. I have left a voice mail message for Agent Cool, but have
not received a reply as of yet.
November 16, 1998: Patrick Bergeron (Missing Children's
Network in Canada) called to tell me that he had been speaking
to RCMP Officer Lameer about a different case when this man had
told him that a new lead had been received on our case. A woman
had called the RCMP in British Columbia about three weeks ago
to say that she had met Randell in Greece in May of this year.
Officer Lameer did not have many details on this latest lead.
However, he did say that this information had been passed along
to INTERPOL in Washington, D.C. and to the FBI in Miami.
Although I do not want to interfere with any official
investigation, I cannot help but have grave concerns as to how
this lead is being followed. Past experience with the sightings
in Prague have left me with many doubts as to if a thorough
investigation will be performed in a timely manner. I have,
therefore, contacted Paul Stevenson, who is the U.S. ambassador
to Greece and asked that he help us in any way that he can. To
be quite honest, a part of me feels that I should go to Greece
right away before too much time has passed. However, we are
waiting for a more detailed statement to be made by this
caller.
November 23, 1998: Meredith Morrison (NCMEC) told me that
she has learned from the U.S. Department of State that flags on
passports are not automatically brought up when the passport
number and/or name of the citizen is entered into the system.
To receive this particular information, an individual must run
a further check into the system. How can we be certain that
individuals will take this extra step on a worldwide basis?
Additionally, a DSS officer told Meredith that Randell will not
be immediately detained and/or arrested even in a U.S. Embassy
when the revocation and red notice has been detected. He will
be asked, on some sort of pretense, to return later so that the
Embassy officials will have time to involve the local police
before making an arrest. A man, who is on the run from federal
authorities, will be leery and may not return at all. Senator
Helms, I apologize for taking so much of your time. However, I
believe that my case is an example of the typical problems that
must be faced within our own system so that more of our
children who have been victimized by an abducting parent can be
brought home. Perhaps, by sharing our story with you, you will
have more information with which you can help to spare other
parents similar difficulties in their searches. I am sad to say
that my faith in our ``system'' has been shaken. I will
continue to do whatever is humanly possible to give my son the
life that every child deserves. I am committed to this battle
for life--or until Roman is home.
Sincerely,
Jean Henderson.
______
Orrin G. Hatch,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC,
February 25, 1997.
Hon. Jesse Helms,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: It may interest your committee to review the
materials I have received from Mr. Thomas A. Johnson as it concerns his
efforts, not only in finding an answer to his own case, but also in
addressing the larger problem confronting other American citizens when
a child is abducted by the other parent.
Contrary to the spirit of the Hague Convention treaties, there are
examples where foreign governments are actually aiding and abetting
such practices even when there is a clear violation of a court order. I
understand that the State Department currently has on record some 75
such cases in Sweden alone.
Mr. Johnson has consulted with attorneys at the U.S. Department of
Justice expecting that the International Parental Kidnapping Act of
1993 should provide some relief through extradition. The response he
has received, however, suggests that there is little, if any,
enforcement of the Act. The Justice Department apparently defers to the
State Department and the Hague Convention treaties presumably for
diplomatic purposes.
The extent of U.S. Department of State involvement has been to
provide a list of attorneys in the foreign country and to report on the
whereabouts and welfare of the child who has been kidnapped. Needless
to say, American parents find this limited support inadequate,
particularly as foreign governments are alleged to go as far as to
provide counsel for the parent who has violated the court order.
Greater cooperation between the U.S. Department of State and the
Justice Department in representing the interests of American citizens
in such cases may be desirable.
While I understand that the Foreign Relations Committee has a full
agenda, I am forwarding Mr. Johnson's materials to you for your
perusal. Inasmuch as you have a long record of supporting families, I
believe you will find Mr. Johnson's personal story as well as his
observations and research of interest.
Sincerely,
Orrin G. Hatch,
United States Senator.
______
July 23, 1998.
Hon. Madeleine K. Albright,
Secretary of State,
Department of State, Washington, DC.
Dear Madame Secretary: It has come to our attention that Senator
Jesse Helms has written you a letter expressing his concern that a
number of members of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction are not adhering to this treaty. We would
like to second Senator Helms and express our grave concern that,
despite the requirements of this treaty, too many countries are
disregarding it, and make no attempt to enforce the obligations under
the treaties they have signed.
We have been visited in recent weeks by a number of parents whose
children have been abducted to Germany, Sweden and Denmark, by the non-
custodial parents. There are current felony arrest warrants
outstanding.
We understand that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has
pending before it a number of extradition and mutual legal assistance
treaties. We believe, as Senator Helms does, that these treaties are
useful only if they are fully enforced by both parties to the treaty.
We would very much appreciate answers to the following questions:
Please state the policy of the United States with regard
to entering into a treaty relationship with a country that is in
violation of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International
Child Abduction.
Please list each country that has agreed to extradite its
own nationals.
Please list all provisions--including extradition of
nationals--in the treaties that are unilateral concessions, that is,
the United States will undertake an obligation that the treaty partner
will not.
Please list all outstanding parental abduction cases with
European countries.
Please list all countries with which the United States has
reciprocal child support enforcement agreements and the legal authority
for entering into those agreements.
Please provide those countries of the pending treaties
that protect parents who abduct or wrongfully retain their children and
punish parents who attempt to exercise their sole or joint custody
rights.
Please list those countries which lack the legal basis
such as contempt of court provisions to enforce court decisions in
civil cases.
We look forward to a reply in the near future.
Sincerely,
Nick Lampson,
Member of Congress.
Ben Gilman,
Member of Congress.
Bud Cramer,
Member of Congress.
Bob Franks,
Member of Congress.
Marion Berry,
Member of Congress.
cc: Senator Jesse Helms
__________
List of Additional Material Submitted for the Record Which Will be
Maintained in the Committee's Files
International Parental Child Abduction--A publication of the U.S.
Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (Revised 1997)
International Parental Child Abduction: Islamic Family Law--A
publication of the U.S. Department of State
Abduction: Saudi Arabia--A publication of the U.S. Department of State
(1996)
Saudi Arabia: Marriage to Saudis--A publication of the U.S. Department
of State (1996)
Hague International Child Abduction Convention; Text and Legal
Analysis--U.S. Department of State [Public Notice 957]; Federal
Register, Vol. 51, No. 58, March 26, 1986, pages 10494-10516
Hague Convention (Multilateral Treaty) on International Child Abduction
Enters Into Force on July 1, 1988--U.S. Department of State
[Public Notice 1067]; Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 122, June
24, 1988, page 23843
Cooperative Agreement Adjustment Notice--Text of an agreement by the
the U.S. Department of Justice, The U.S. Department of State,
and the National Center of Missing and Exploited Children
Procedures for Handling Incoming Cases Under the Hague Convention on
the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction--A
publication of the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children
Hague International Child Abduction Convention: A Progress Report--by
Linda Silberman; Published in Law and Contemporary Problems,
School of Law, Duke University, Vol. 57, No. 3 (Summer 1994)
Getting Them Back: The Disappointing Reality of Return Orders Under the
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction-- by Jan Rewers McMillan; Published in Journal of the
American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Summer
1997)