[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HOPE DEFERRED: SECURING ENFORCEMENT OF
THE GOLDMAN ACT TO RETURN ABDUCTED
AMERICAN CHILDREN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 14, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-223
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-751PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
MATT SALMON, Arizona KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
PAUL COOK, California ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas GRACE MENG, New York
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TED S. YOHO, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CURT CLAWSON, Florida BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
DANIEL DONOVAN, New York
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and
International Organizations
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina KAREN BASS, California
CURT CLAWSON, Florida DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee AMI BERA, California
DANIEL DONOVAN, New York
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Ms. Karen Christensen, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State..................... 3
Chris Brann, M.D. (father of child abducted to Brazil)........... 23
Ms. Ruchika Abbi (mother of child abducted to India)............. 30
Mr. James Cook (father of children abducted to Japan)............ 59
Ms. Edeanna Barbirou (mother of child abducted to Tunisia)....... 78
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Ms. Karen Christensen: Prepared statement........................ 6
Chris Brann, M.D.: Prepared statement............................ 27
Ms. Ruchika Abbi: Prepared statement............................. 36
Mr. James Cook: Prepared statement............................... 67
Ms. Edeanna Barbirou: Prepared statement......................... 83
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 96
Hearing minutes.................................................. 97
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on
Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International
Organizations:
Letter from Mr. Elijah Jackson................................. 98
Letter from the Honorable Jim McDermott, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Washington........................ 100
Statement from the Honorable C. A. Dutch Ruppersburger, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland........ 101
Written responses from Ms. Karen Christensen to questions
submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith. 102
HOPE DEFERRED: SECURING ENFORCEMENT
OF THE GOLDMAN ACT TO RETURN
ABDUCTED AMERICAN CHILDREN
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
Global Human Rights, and International Organizations,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m., in
room 2255 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Smith. The subcommittee will come to order, and
welcome.
I want to thank all of you, especially all the left-behind
parents I see in the audience for joining us this afternoon to
discuss what the U.S. Department of State's second annual
report under the Sean and David Goldman International Child
Abduction Prevention and Return Act tells us about the
Department's implementation of the Goldman Act thus far.
It is worth noting that the numbers of new abductions from
the United States in 2015 remain below the pre-Goldman Act mark
probably due to increased abduction prevention. So I want to
commend the Department for a myriad of efforts it has
undertaken on the prevention side.
According to the report, 600 more children were abducted to
other countries last year, quickly replacing the 229 children
abducted in various years, not just last year but obviously
previous years as well, who were returned.
Overall, approximately 1,000 remain in a foreign country
separated from their American parent. As many of you have
experienced, international parental child abduction rips
children from their homes and whisks them away to a foreign
land, alienating them from the love and care of the parent and
family left behind.
Child abduction is child abuse and continues to plague
families across the United States and across the world. For
decades the State Department has used quiet diplomacy to
attempt to bring these children home.
In a hearing I held on this issue back in 2009 former
Assistant Secretary of State Bernie Aronson called quiet
diplomacy a sophisticated form of begging.
Thousands of American families who suffer unspeakable agony
from years of unresolved abductions confirm that quiet
diplomacy is inadequate. Of course, conversations and contact
are important but they need to be backed up with concrete
actions as well.
In 2014, Congress unanimously passed the Goldman Act to
give teeth to requests for return as well as for access. The
actions against noncooperating governments required by the law
escalate in severity and range from official protests through
diplomatic channels to the suspension of development, security,
or other foreign assistance.
Extradition of abducting parents also may be the case. The
Goldman Act is a law calculated to get results as we did in the
return of Sean Goldman from Brazil in 2009 and I stay in very
close contact with them and both father and son are doing
extremely well.
This year's report as required by the Goldman Act singles
out 19 countries in total including India, Brazil, Japan, and
Tunisia for failures to work with the United States in the
return of abducted American children.
For instance, the report notes 83 abductions to India still
open at the end of the year with 25 of those being new in 2015.
Only one was closed with a court-ordered return to the U.S.
These numbers will continue to climb each year until India
creates a mechanism for resolution. Right now, India is a
magnet for abductions because the taking parents are almost
guaranteed to get away with their crime.
Brazil had 17 abduction cases open at the end of 2015 with
a 27-percent resolution rate. Brazil has been a Hague
Convention partner with the United States in 2003 and has yet
consistently failed to comply with the Hague Convention.
Devon Davenport, who has testified before this
subcommittee, has won every one of his 24 appeals in Brazil's
courts over the last 7 years and yet he still cannot get his
daughter, Nadia, home.
If there ever was a textbook case for sanctions, Brazil is
it. They have met the legal threshold ten times over. The
report lists Japan as a ``country that has failed to comply
with one or more of its Hague Convention obligations''
specifically ``in the area of enforcement of return orders.''
Multiple parents have won victories in court only to
discover Japan has what the report calls ``systemic flaws''
with enforcement. What remains inexplicable is why Japan was
kept off the list of noncompliant countries for a second year,
thus shielded from the imposition of sanctions prescribed by
the Goldman Act, even though the Department condemns them for
systemic flaws in their ability to enforce court orders.
Failure to enforce return orders is a sufficient trigger
for landing on the noncompliant list and I say that again. In
the plain meaning and text of the Goldman Act that is enough to
trigger being listed as noncompliant.
One parent had to go outside of the Convention framework to
achieve enforcement in an extraordinary case resolved after the
reporting period.
The report should also should have counted against Japan
the 40--count them--40 pre-Convention abduction cases it
mentions as still pending, most of them for more than 5 years.
Countries should be listed as worst offenders if they have
high numbers of cases--30 percent or more--that have been
pending for more than a year. Again, in Japan--most of these
are more than 5 years.
Countries may also be listed if their law enforcement,
judiciary, or central authority for abductions regularly fails
in their duties under the Hague Convention or other controlling
agreement or if the country simply fails to work with the
United States to resolve the cases.
Accurate reporting, including inclusion of the worst
offenders list, is critical to family court judges across the
country and parents considering their child's travel to a
foreign country where abduction or access problems are at risk.
However, reporting is just step one. Once these countries
are properly classified, the Secretary of State then determines
which of the aforementioned actions the United States will
apply to the country in order to encourage the timely
resolution of cases.
Such actions should bring an end to the nightmare of the
Elias family whose children, Jade and Michael, who live in New
Jersey but they now have been abducted to Japan, and have been
missing in Japan for 8 years.
Michael, their father, has testified before our
subcommittee twice in the past, an Iraqi war veteran, and it is
heartbreaking like it is for the other families that are here
to know that their children languish in a setting where
parental alienation causes severe and significant deleterious
effects to their mental health and that has been well proven.
And the longer the years the worse it, arguably, becomes for
those children.
We have a panel of family members, left-behind parents who
will be testifying after Ms. Christensen. But I would like to
thank them for being here and then I'd like to now introduce
Ms. Karen Christensen, who has served as Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for Overseas Citizens Services since August
2014.
Most recently, Ms. Christensen was the Minister Consular
for Consular Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Berlin where she
coordinated consular operations at several posts in Germany
Prior to that she was Consul General in Manila.
She also served in Washington within the Bureau of Consular
Affairs in the Visa Office in the Office of Executive Director.
Overseas, she has served as a consular officer in London,
Bucharest, Warsaw, and Seoul.
Other Washington tours include serving as an instructor in
the Consular Training Division and a Career Development Officer
in the Bureau of Human Resources.
STATEMENT OF MS. KAREN CHRISTENSEN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. Christensen. Chairman Smith, thank you for this
opportunity to discuss international parental child abduction.
This issue is one of the highest priorities of the
Department of State. My testimony today will summarize my
written statement, which I request be entered into the record.
Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Christensen. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you
for your leadership on this issue. We continue to use our
diplomatic engagement with countries to prevent or resolve
abduction cases using the tools you gave us in the Sean and
David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and
Return Act of 2014.
In preparing the recently released 2016 report, we used the
feedback we received from you as well as from parents, judges,
and our partners at the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children to make the report a more helpful resource
for parents, judges, and family law attorneys.
The 2016 report includes additional narrative statements
and country-specific information that will make it a powerful
tool for resolving cases in the year to come.
Mr. Chairman, we are getting results. In 2015, 299 abducted
children were returned to the United States. The majority, 213,
returned from countries we are partnered with under the 1980
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction.
More than that, thanks to new measures in the law we have a
liaison agreement with the Department of Homeland Security and
a full time Department of State employee now serves at the
Customs and Border Protection National Targeting Center. This
allows for seamless communications and since the law took
effect we've prevented over 140 potential abductions.
We have prepared congressional reports on our international
parental child abduction work since at least 2007. Our 2015
report was the first issued under the new requirements of the
act.
As the parents here today with us know, each abduction case
is unique. To reflect this fact and the complexities involved
in resolving these cases, in preparing the 2016 report we added
narratives that give context to the statistics.
We regret that this report was late. This year we
completely reworked the format of the report to make it a more
useful resource for families and we are taking steps to ensure
that this delay does not happen again next year.
Building on last year's work we believe that the 2016
report is a significantly more helpful tool for all
stakeholders. We are using the report to focus our efforts to
collaborate with your constituents, advocacy groups, our
interagency partners, foreign government counterparts and with
you, Members of Congress, to return children home. We are
getting results.
In May, Japan successfully enforced its first court order
under the Convention and four children returned with their
mother to the United States. I was in Japan for bilateral
meetings on abductions when the Japanese court enforced the
return order.
So I was able to witness first-hand the strong cooperation
between our two countries that helped resolve this case and I
am pleased to inform the subcommittee that on July 8th a second
Convention case was resolved successfully following the
enforcement of a Convention return order and a father was
reunited with his son.
Both have returned to the United States. We are optimistic
that these two groundbreaking cases are a turning point in
Japan's ability to comply with the Convention and the beginning
of a pattern of success for the Convention in Japan.
The report highlights our deepening engagement with
countries that have become party to the Convention. As a result
of those efforts in early 2016 we welcomed Thailand as our 74th
partner under the Convention and we look forward to potential
partnership review of the Philippines which became party to the
Convention last month.
Yet, we know that despite these positive diplomatic results
some families continue to suffer as their children remain
across an international border and we have much more work to
do.
In the 2016 report, we cited 13 Convention partner
countries that either demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance
or failed to comply with one or more of their obligations under
the Convention in 2015 as defined by the act and we cited eight
nonconvention countries that demonstrated a pattern of
noncompliance in 2015 as defined by the act.
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee, we
constantly strive to increase our effectiveness and always look
for ways to collaborate with our partners including you,
Members of Congress, who have committed so much time and energy
to addressing this very important and urgent issue.
We will continue to get results. Let me emphasize my
personal commitment and the Department's dedication to
preventing international parental child abductions and
safeguarding and returning abducted children to their places of
habitual residence.
I appreciate your feedback and suggestions and I look
forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Christensen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Ms. Christensen, thank you very much for your
testimony and I do agree that this year's report is certainly
more readable and I thank you for that.
I do have a number of questions and let me first--I deeply
appreciate Secretary Kerry's letter of transmittal in the
report where he says there can be no safe haven for abductors
and I believe in his whole heart and soul he believes that. He,
when he was a U.S. Senator, had family members of a constituent
abducted in one case to Egypt.
At one point we had the father testify and it was very
compelling testimony and Egypt, of course, is on the list of
non-Hague patterns of noncooperation and as it should be. But
he, in the letter, he also makes the point that there has been
an effort to stop abductions as they are happening.
Can you elaborate? Have there been actual instances that
you can cite, maybe a number and maybe without naming names but
a situation where such an abduction was stopped in progress?
Ms. Christensen. Sure. We have had actually a case--one of
the things in the world of prevention, first of all, as
mentioned we have an officer from our office who is permanently
seconded now to the National Targeting Center. That allows for
the communication to happen immediately when we hear of an
abduction in process and I can tell you, because I read the
duty officer reports, that my staff is involved in it every
night. That means 24/7 somebody is on duty and I see every day
there is at least one phone call that involved a parental child
abduction.
Not necessarily an abduction in process--sometimes they're
calling to say I think this might happen, how do I protect
myself, how do I get this stopped, how do I enroll my child in
the program that prevents them from getting a passport without
my permission. We're answering those calls 24/7.
But because we have an officer now at the National
Targeting Center and because in the Sean and David Goldman Act
you gave us the tools--you gave CBP--Customs and Border
Protection--some additional tools to be able to actually act on
those abductions in progress we have been able to stop quite a
number of those.
I can think of one example, and this was quite
groundbreaking, where a plane actually turned around and the
plane had departed already--turned around and came back with
the child who was in the process of being----
Mr. Smith. Where was that plane heading to?
Ms. Christensen. It was headed to China.
Mr. Smith. So the child was reunited?
Ms. Christensen. Yes, so the child was reunited. Another
thing we're doing is working very closely with the airlines and
the airlines are ramping up their training for staff to be able
to spot the characteristics of a child who is being abducted or
a situation in which the child is being abducted.
So we are trying to come at this from a lot of different
angles. We also have an interagency group that meets twice a
year to discuss how we can all cooperate best on this.
Mr. Smith. We have four very, very loving and committed
parents--two mothers and two fathers--who will be testifying
and I do hope your office knows about them, knows their cases
well.
But if you could take their testimonies to heart again,
with a new commitment. Ms. Abbi, who is the mother of a child
abducted to India, Mr. Cook, father of a child abducted to
Japan, Dr. Brann to Brazil, his child Nico, and Ms. Barbirou to
Tunisia.
Now, all of those countries are listed as problem countries
in the report and it is my sincere hope that the other shoe,
and if you can give us any insight as to whether or not this
will happen--the other shoe, which is the sanctions part, will
that drop?
I've authored a number of other human rights laws including
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and it
prescribes all kinds of penalties of countries on Tier 3 and
very often we find on the enforcement side of the ledger
there's a lot of admonishments but not a whole lot of
penalties.
On the International Religious Freedom Act there are
countries called CPC countries, as you know so well, and very
often they get a lot of good diplomatic chatter but not a whole
lot by way of the 18 prescribed sanctions that are articulated
in that legislation, which was enacted in 1998.
And then so will there be a sanctions--serious sanctions
effort that will follow now the naming of these countries?
Ms. Christensen. There will be a serious evaluation of what
next steps would be most appropriate for those countries and
for each individual case.
I know you've heard us talk about persistent diplomacy,
about creating a steady drumbeat and I know sometimes when you
look at the list of actions and it says we're going to raise
these cases, we raise these cases at the highest levels and we
engage with those countries at the highest levels.
And there's a question I'm sure amongst all the parents
about what does that mean, what is this diplomacy that you're
engaging in? I know you've spoken with Ambassador Susan Jacobs,
who's our Special Advisor for Children's Issues.
You've spoken also with our Assistant Secretary, Michele
Bond. Both of them travel frequently and everywhere they go
they talk about these cases.
I have been twice to Japan and spoken with the Japanese
authorities there prior to these two returns that we've had.
And I can tell you that those conversations, although we say
raise the cases, it's much more than that.
Those are very frank and, I will say, often very
contentious discussions about the need to return these children
with us pressing and pressing about things that can be done,
suggesting, talking often with raised voices about these are
steps that you can take to make these processes work.
Let me give you also an example from this week. I don't
want to name a name or a country, but we had a very
longstanding case in a non-Hague country, a case in which we
were actually seeing some positive movement and we were
expecting that it was quite close to resolution.
We heard from the left-behind parent some very distressing
news about how things were proceeding. That very next day
Ambassador Susan Jacobs was in speaking to the Ambassador from
that country.
Our post in that country went out and met with two
different ministries in the government and really working
together to try to figure out what we believe will be a way
forward that will protect both the child and the left-behind
parent and lead, we hope, to a resolution.
Mr. Smith. Let me ask you, on page 13 mention was made of
the 213 returned from Convention countries, 86 from countries
adhering to the protocols with respect to child abduction.
One of the provisions, Section 103, calls for not later
than 180 days after date of enactment the Secretary shall
initiate a process to develop and enter into appropriate
bilateral procedures including a memorandum of understanding as
appropriate.
It's an issue regarding Japan and India that I have raised
for 7 years and maybe even longer but certainly at least that
long and it seems to me that the bitterness of a Japanese left-
behind parent whose child has been abducted to Japan is
exacerbated and compounded as if they'd been left a second time
when there is no procedure for those remaining cases.
And just calling a case closed because a child ages out or
something along those lines is, you know, is--maybe they'll see
them, maybe not someday but it's awful, in my opinion, for
these families, some who have waited, you know, more than a
decade, like Paul Tolland--well over a decade.
I have a big difference of opinion with the administration
on this but I hope it'll be revisited. The MOUs have to deal
with these other, you know, left-behind parents the second time
because, as we all know, ratification of the Hague Convention
starts at the date of ratification and everyone before that may
get in, as was said earlier in previous testimony, by the good
will that's generated. I don't believe that for a moment.
The culture takes a long time to change and if it's, again,
those 40, for example, cases in Japan we'll still have 40 next
year. Or though some may age out again and we'll be counting
that as fewer cases. But that's really a poor excuse for true
resolution.
So my question is about the MOUs and if you could tell us
as well how many of the cases after the reporting period
calendar year, December 31st, of those 4 have any of the 40
been resolved since then? We're 6 months plus into the new
year. Anybody on that list been truly resolved by bringing the
child home?
Ms. Christensen. Let me start first by saying something
about MOUs and why we continue to believe that the Hague
Convention is so important because MOUs are simply a collection
of what procedures already exist.
They don't create any new legal structures or any new
potential enforcement structures and that's one of the
difficulties that we see when we talk about MOUs and we always
bring up MOUs and bilateral agreements with countries when
we're talking about this.
But, quite frankly, because they don't create new legal
structures they don't have teeth behind them.
Mr. Smith. But they could create new administrative
structures that would have the force of law--that a country
that's committed and really feels that there is a penalty
awaiting them, a sword of Damocles of some level in terms of a
sanction, a country doesn't necessarily have to go through the
Diet or through their Congress or Parliament, although that
would be nice, it could still----
Ms. Christensen. It doesn't create a new legal structure
for them to enforce something. Let me talk a little bit about
Japan.
Mr. Smith. Again, they can do it by administrative action.
I mean----
Ms. Christensen. Some things.
Mr. Smith [continuing]. We make law all the time by Federal
regulation that is given vague advice by Congress only to--or a
vague mandate and then all kinds of things are promulgated with
the same exact force of law and penalties that accrue thereon
if you don't follow them.
Ms. Christensen. I would also point out that there are
countries in which we do have bilateral agreements and
bilateral arrangements and all three of those countries are
cited here for noncompliant. They're non-Hague countries that
are under the pattern of noncooperation.
Let me talk a little bit about Japan, what exists now for
the parents who are in that pre-Hague, those earlier cases.
While they cannot file for a Hague return order, what they can
file for is a Hague access.
They can file a Hague access case. That puts a little more
force of government behind it, creates a few more tools at
their disposal to--for Hague access cases.
We have encouraged parents to do this. A number of parents
have filed Hague access cases. Not all parents have. That's, of
course, their choice. We have seen some limited success there.
We have seen a number of----
Mr. Smith. How many have had success?
Ms. Christensen. I'd have to look up exactly how many have
had success. Has been a handful, I would say. I don't have the
exact number in front of me, and success means--and let me
qualify that because I know this is not what the parents would
deem a success nor is it what we're looking for as an ultimate
resolution.
But there are parents who have gained some limited access
through the tools that the Japanese Government has put at their
disposal and helps to manage and this limited access, of
course, in these cases that are very, very longstanding, this
access is the first step toward rebuilding that relationship
that then hopefully will lead to the children also saying yes,
I want to be joined with that family and I want to rejoin the
left-behind parent.
So I understand that that's not a full success but we
believe that that is a first step toward that.
Mr. Smith. But again----
Ms. Christensen. But we believe that that is a first step
toward that.
Mr. Smith. Having the child say pro or con, he or she wants
to do that or they--children, siblings--is not in any way a
determinant. I mean, in the Sean and David Goldman case the
lawyers went out of their way to even put Sean Goldman in front
of a camera with prompts for him to say how he wanted to stay
in Brazil.
Talk to Sean Goldman now and there's--and there's no doubt
that he was pressured into that kind of exchange. And I would
fear taking the word of a 5-year-old----
Ms. Christensen. I'm not--I'm not saying that at all. I'm
not saying we just take the word for the child. I'm saying that
that creates--that starts to rebuild that relationship that has
suffered by being--by that long-term separation.
Can I also say something about India, since you mentioned
India?
Mr. Smith. Sure.
Ms. Christensen. India, as you know, we have been talking
to India for a long time and pushing India to join the Hague
Convention and one of the sticking points has always been that
they needed legislation to facilitate their accession to the
Hague.
That legislation has now been drafted. It has been put out
for public comment and the public comment period has closed. So
they are actually taking a step toward Hague accession.
And another significant milestone in our work with India
has been that for the very first time this has been mentioned
by the prime minister. It was in the joint statement during
Prime Minister Modi's state visit here recently and there was
mention of international family matters in there and that is
really a significant milestone that has been mentioned at that
high level in India publicly.
Mr. Smith. When the President and the Secretary of State
met with Modi--I met with him, very briefly. I introduced him
to Bindu Philips who has been waiting for years to even see her
two sons.
The police department in New Jersey has documented that not
only did the husband abduct her two children, and did so in the
most fraudulent of ways, there's also a lot of theft involved
and she was left pretty much destitute without her two children
and her husband.
I mentioned it to Modi. He listened. I don't know if he'll
do anything. I've met with the Ambassador on that case and
several others--the Ambassador to the United States from
India--and he stressed how important it was that we speak with
respect to each other and I can tell you I deeply respect
India. It's a robust democracy. But if it's failing and
engaging in egregious human rights abuse against American
children. I've had hearings on the Dalits and how they're
abused in India.
We've had hearings on the endemic problem of child sex
tourism within as well as into India.
All of that laid aside, we respect India, but solve these
cases. And so I would, again, say to the Ambassador as I did
privately there is no disrespect here. It's just the opposite.
We expect you to live up to the highest standards
articulated in the Hague Convention. Whether you sign it or
not, it is an international human rights norm and a treaty and
a law for those who sign it.
But for the ones who, again, will be left out, I would
encourage you in the strongest way to be thinking about an MOU
that would--and I do believe new procedures could be included
in an MOU. In countries and administrations, executive branches
have wide latitude to come up with mechanisms that will
effectuate the return of children.
And Bindu Philips, like so many others are quintessential
examples of abuse and just like I said earlier some of these
folks like in Brazil win court case after court case and they
still don't have their kids.
So I can't say enough. It's in the law about the MOU and
Congress wants this. It was a bipartisan law and while three
countries may not have lived up to an expectation of an MOU
being effectual, it can be if it's made to be effective. It's a
matter of prioritization, both sides, and doing it. And again,
for the Japanese left-behind parents, having met with them so
often and so many places, heard their testimonies but even more
so heard them tell their stories with tears in my office and in
other venues.
You've heard it too. We've got to be the wind behind their
backs and that goes for all of the countries, of course. But
they feel and they felt it then. Of course, sign Hague, ratify
Hague. But don't leave us out again.
So I would encourage you please go back and think of an MOU
vis-a-vis these countries that would really make this real.
Ms. Christensen. Let me just say, for one of those non-
Hague cases there was a case where the father is currently
visiting his son and the older son already came back under a
voluntary return.
I realize that is not a complete success for everybody but
I think that is the beginning of a step in the right direction.
Mr. Smith. You mentioned in the report on page 10 that
approximately 100 judges from 65 countries are part of the
judges network. How many Japanese, Tunisian, Indian, and
Brazilian judges are a part of that?
Ms. Christensen. I don't have the numbers of how many
judges there are from each country. I know that we certainly
have met with Japanese judges.
We have met with the Japanese judges. I think they only
recently have officially declared that they are judges who are
part of the Hague network.
We have our own Hague network judges that go out and visit
with judges in all of these countries to talk about it on a
peer to peer basis because often that is also effective and
because our Hague network judges have travelled to a number of
countries and they're familiar with a number of different legal
systems.
We think they are a very effective tool for helping to
explain particularly to new Hague countries how Hague can fit
within their legal system.
Mr. Smith. Let me just ask a couple of final questions and
I thank you again for being here. Could you elaborate on page
32 on Japan's section? It seems to be in its own category, a
limbo where I think it should be a pattern of noncompliance
because of the so many unresolved cases.
Where do they sit and, secondly, just to quote the report,
it says at the end of 2015, 40 open pre-Convention abductions
remained. Of these, 32 were with the Japanese Ministry of
Foreign Affairs for more than 12 months. In 2015, one pre-
Convention case was resolved and 11 cases were closed and maybe
you can explain. By closed were they aged out? What was that?
And then you point out that in 2015 Japan failed to comply
with its obligations under the Hague abduction Convention in
the area of enforcement of return orders. So now we're talking
about the actual Convention and of course if you don't have
enforcement you don't have anything. You know, ask so many of
the left-behind parents.
When the police fail to deliver the child or whatever the
law enforcement mechanisms was, and then you say exposing what
may be a systemic flaw in Japan's ability to enforce return
orders.
What are we doing to push back on that? It seems to me that
if any part of the stool is broken kids don't come home.
Ms. Christensen. Right. Those are some of the most
contentious discussions I can tell you that we've had is the
discussion the enforcement and what Japan could do to improve
its enforcement of the orders.
Here in this section when we're talking about 2015 in
Japan, while there were several ordered returns or there were
several return orders, the way the system works in Japan
there's then another step that you have to take to actually
request that those orders be enforced.
In 2015 there had been an attempt--one attempt to enforce
one order. That was not successful. That particular case didn't
then come for another attempt to--for to enforce the return
order until January 2016.
So what we were looking at in terms of enforcement was we
believed not a pattern of a lack of enforcement because there
had only been a single attempt in a single case. But we did
have concerns about the entire mechanism that existed for
enforcement and whether that was going to lead to ongoing
problems in the enforcement of return orders. Japan has
actually issued a number of return orders and now we're into
the enforcement phase and that's something that we're watching
very, very carefully.
I mentioned that two of those return orders have been
enforced so far this year. You yourself mentioned that one
parent had to go outside the Hague for the eventual
enforcement.
Mr. Smith. Given that track record and, again, I think the
narrative on Japan is chilling, how does it not rise to the
level of persistent failure as----
Ms. Christensen. We were looking at that enforcement in
2015. Those records were then enforced in 2016. As I said,
there had only been one attempt.
Question was was that a pattern or was that a failure in a
particular area. We think there was a very--Japan has a very
well-resourced central authority. They provide counselling.
They have a whole lot of resources.
But if the children don't return then that's a failure in
that particular area which is the enforcement of the return
order.
I will say although that--in that case they did have to
ultimately go beyond the Hague--the Hague procedures in order
for that return to be enforced in that first case. And as I
said, I was there while that was happening. There was quite a
lot of drama associated with it.
But I think that what that shows--what we hope that shows
is that it was a commitment on the behalf of the judicial
authorities in Japan, even beyond the Hague procedures to see
those orders enforced.
And what we really hope is that that will then be an
incentive for other parents to cooperate sooner in the process.
That is what we see as one of the greatest benefits of the
Hague Convention is to discourage parents from committing these
abductions to begin with.
Mr. Smith. On the International Visitor Leadership Program,
in 2015 the report says that judicial, administrative, and
other leaders from 15 nations came here to learn how we do it.
Were those nations Tunisia, Brazil, Japan or India, or other
countries? I mean, what are the 15?
Ms. Christensen. I don't have the list in front of me and
we can certainly take that question back and send you that
list. I know that we go out of our way to invite the countries
that we believe do have the biggest challenges.
So we would invite judges from Brazil. I know that there
was a group from Japan that visited this past year. I know that
we particularly invite countries where we believe they could
most benefit from our discussions. We're not going to invite
necessarily the countries where things are working smoothly.
They don't need our help. We're going to invite the
countries where we really think we have something to contribute
in trying to make this work better.
Mr. Smith. Since they would stand out, were there any
judges from Japan? Stand out because their judicial system has
shown itself to be so flawed when it comes to implementing
these cases.
Ms. Christensen. I don't believe judges from Japan have
travelled here. However, I do know that our Hague network
judges have travelled there and spoken to them in Japan on
several occasions.
Mr. Smith. That's about all I have.
Again, I would again ask you to please take the MOU request
seriously. It is in the law, prescribed in the law. I think
without it we'll be back here next year and the year after that
and the year after that talking about maybe a diminishing
number of cases from countries but only because individual
children will have aged-out or perhaps the parents just
exhausted financially, emotionally, and physically from this
trauma; I don't know how any of these parents can endure this.
We have cases where we know there are concerns on whether
or not the children are being abused, where there was history
of abuse in the family. We have situations where bad advice was
given by JAG officers, and I've read the report and I know at
by nearby university, George Mason, 400 or so JAG officers got
training and I think that's a good thing.
Ms. Christensen. We also did training.
Mr. Smith. The more we train the better, and thank you for
that.
Ms. Christensen. We also did training actually in Naha with
JAG officers there. That was just this year. That was in May.
Certainly, I would like nothing better than for there to be
no need for us to come up here, not because it bothers us to
come up here but because we would like this problem solved.
Mr. Smith. It has been my experience 36 years as a Member
of Congress that when it comes to human rights even of our own
citizens, very often other issues have a way of crowding out
that concern. So it slips from page 1 to page 5 to an asterisk
somewhere.
And it is very troubling that the parents say to me how
discouraged they get dealing with our Government. They don't
want to complain too much.
They're fearful there could be a backlash, that people
would say well, if you're going to be so concerned well, forget
it. I'm going to go slow on your case. I don't know if that's
happened and I wouldn't think it could happen----
Ms. Christensen. Let me put that to rest right away.
Parents should not ever feel shy about contacting us about
that.
Mr. Smith. And being critical. I mean----
Ms. Christensen. And being critical, and----
Mr. Smith [continuing]. Who gets more criticism than
Members of Congress? But I think it serves a purpose. It
sharpens everyone's thoughts with regards to what course ought
to be taken and I think the same goes for----
Ms. Christensen. And we value very much our collaboration
with the parents in trying to figure out what's the best way
forward in any individual case.
Circumstances are different in each individual case and
what might work in one might not work in another. So it's very
important for us to have a very close collaboration with the
families and talking about what's the best way forward.
Mr. Smith. In terms of noticing Members of Congress when
there is a case from their district, of course, we wrote that
into the Goldman Act but we made it so that it was an opt-in on
the part of the parents.
Are the Office of Children's Issues personnel advising
families that an advocate could be your Congressman or
Congresswoman? Is that okay if we do it? Do you have an X in
the box somewhere?
Ms. Christensen. I know it's something that we ask parents
about all the time, yes--can we notify your Member of Congress,
would you like us to notify your Member of Congress.
Mr. Smith. And what do most them say?
Ms. Christensen. I think most of them say yes.
Mr. Smith. And do you? I mean, is there a formal letter
that goes out to the members?
Ms. Christensen. How we do notify them, yes. In fact we
went back also to all the old cases and asked them.
Mr. Smith. That's very good. Thank you.
And again, I would just make the strongest appeal that as
you look at part two, the sanctions regime because they are
stale and toothless if they're not employed.
You have all kinds of options pursuant to the Goldman Act
whether it be an escalating effort and certainly the countries
on the list and I would hope that Japan would soon be named for
what it is rather than in this special category, that I don't
know what it is, with Austria. Why is it there?
Ms. Christensen. Well, as I said, it is in the law. There
is a provision in the law that says has failed to comply with
one aspect and in looking at it we felt, when looking at the--
particularly when looking at their Hague compliance, that we
hadn't seen a pattern yet. This does not mean a pattern cannot
exist in the future and it's--we're keeping a very close eye on
Japan.
It is something that we're watching very, very carefully.
We continue to talk to the Japanese frequently on this issue.
Mr. Smith. Okay. But again, even according to the narrative
set forth on the situation on the ground in Japan only one of
these have to be true, and one of them is law enforcement
authorities regularly fail to enforce return orders.
Even the one that was procured under the Hague Convention
went afoul and all the others simply haven't happened yet.
That's beyond the pattern. That's almost uniformity.
So I would hope even now you'd go back and relook at this.
Nothing precludes you from putting this back.
Ms. Christensen. We're reevaluating everything for the next
year's report.
Mr. Smith. You could designate Japan tomorrow, if you'd
like, based on the record, a reappraisal that it's a country
that has persistently failed and therefore it's a pattern of
noncompliance because it really is.
Because I don't understand that, in all candor, because we
wrote the law. It's clear as a bell. I thank you.
Ms. Christensen. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. And again, look at the sanctions regime. If we
use them, use them judiciously I think we will see a much
sharper response from each of these countries and the net
beneficiaries will be these American children and their
agonizing left-behind parents.
Thank you.
Ms. Christensen. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. I'd like to now welcome to the witness table our
second panel, beginning with Dr. Chris Brann, who is a
physician in Houston, Texas. He received his B.S. in biology
from the University of Texas-Pan American and a joint MBA-MD
from Rice University and the Baylor College of Medicine.
He completed his medical residency in internal medicine at
Baylor College of medicine and affiliated hospitals where he
currently practices in internal medicine and is an assistant
professor.
On July 1, 2013, his then wife, Marcelle, abducted their
son, Nico, to Brazil and he has been before us before and we're
all looking forward to his statement today.
We'll then hear from Ms. Richika Abbi who has been a legal
permanent of the U.S. since 2010 and a citizen of India
residing in Virginia, employed with Amazon Web Services. She
came to the United States on a student visa in the year 2000.
In 2001 she married a man from India in 2001 named Seth and
they both came to the United States with the intent of
permanently settling here.
Her child, Roshni Seth, is a U.S. citizen by birth born in
2007. Roshni resided with both parents in Virginia in 2014 when
she was uprooted from her habitual residence and abducted to
India by her father after he was convicted of violently
assaulting her mother. Ms. Abbi has been desperately seeking
her daughter's return to the United States for the last 2
years.
Then we will hear from Mr. James Cook, who's the father of
four children, two sets of twins, who have been in Japan for 2
years. Later this month will be the 1 year anniversary of his
Hague application to return his children to Minnesota.
In this time, he has only been allowed one visit with this
children. All other contact was unilaterally severed by the
taking parent.
The last contact and reply from his children was late
August 2015. Mr. Cook works for Boston Scientific Corporation,
a manufacturer of medical devices in Minnesota.
We'll then hear from Ms. Edeanna Barbirou, who is the
mother of an abducted child to Tunisia and their two children
named Zainab and Eslam Chebbi, who were abducted by their
father to Tunisia. The family resided together in Maryland
until February 2010 when Edeanna obtained a protective order
and was able to remove herself and the children from the family
home.
In January 2011, she and her ex-husband signed a legal
separation agreement granting her full legal and physical
custody of the children in exchange for maintaining visitation
every other weekend, adding 1 weekday afternoon with the
children with no child support.
In November 2011, however, her ex-husband picked up the
children from their routine weekend visitation. It was later
discovered that his friend drove them directly to Dulles
Airport to depart to Tunisia.
Just four very compelling cases and I thank you for coming
here to share with the subcommittee, to the Congress, and I
hope the executive branch as well and I thank you for staying
to hear your testimonies.
Dr. Brann.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS BRANN, M.D. (FATHER OF CHILD ABDUCTED TO
BRAZIL)
Dr. Brann. Good afternoon. My name is Chris Brann. My son,
Nico, was abducted from Houston, Texas and taken to Brazil by
my ex-wife 3 years ago in July 2013.
Before I begin, I'd like to personally thank you,
Representative Smith, Chairman Smith, for your tireless
advocacy, unwavering support of my case and all of these cases,
and holding this hearing today.
Additionally, I must note that Ambassador Bond and
Ambassador Jacobs, U.S. Ambassador to Brazil, Liliana Ayalde,
have all been involved in my son's case for many years and have
expressed continued interest in seeing Nico returned home.
I'd also like to thank Deputy Assistant Secretary Karen
Christensen for her remarks and her report.
My son Nico was born September 14, 2009. He's a cheerful,
playful, and beautiful little boy and I love him deeply and I
miss him deeply.
My ex-wife, Marcelle, and I separated in 2012 and while
there were some irreconcilable differences we agreed on joint
custody so that both of us could be in Nico's life. I did
everything I could to protect Nico. When Marcelle, my ex-wife,
asked if she could travel with Nico to Brazil to see her family
I was hesitant.
I had heard the horror stories and I was familiar with Sean
Goldman's case. But I said yes on the condition that we had a
travel agreement in place making clear that she would bring
Nico home.
And I knew all the Texas court orders made clear that
Nico's permanent domicile was in Texas. I am the textbook
classic case of somebody who did everything they possibly could
do to protect themselves.
The law, I thought, was on my side. I was so incredibly
wrong. In Brazil, I learned much later, that my ex-wife had
immediately filed for sole custody of Nico, hiding the fact
that we already had a joint custody agreement in Texas.
We now know that Nico's abduction was premeditated,
facilitated by the school owned by Marcelle and her family.
This means that she had been lying to me and to the Texas court
when she signed the travel agreement. She never planned to
bring Nico back.
I immediately filed a claim under the Hague Convention on
the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction to have my
son returned home to Texas and I also challenged the Brazilian
court order of sole custody.
That was 3 years ago. Today, after 17 visits to Brazil and
five to Washington, DC, things have actually gotten worse, not
better, and there is no end in sight.
In July 2015, a Brazilian Federal court issued its final
decision under the Hague Convention. The presiding judge, Arali
Duarte, wrongfully found that Nico was well settled and refused
to order his return.
Under the Hague Convention, that exception to prevent a
return can only be invoked by a judge if the left-behind parent
waited more than a year to file their case. I did not.
Also surprising was that the only precedent that the judge
cited to justify her action was an old decision in the Sean
Goldman case, which was later overruled by the Brazil Supreme
Court. Apparently it did not matter that Sean Goldman had been
back in New Jersey for more than 5 years.
I am now looking at years of appeals and meanwhile the
state court in Brazil that gave my ex-wife sole custody has
refused to revisit that decision. It has even issued further
rulings on custody, visitation, and child support.
Now, every time I go to Brazil there is a risk that I will
be thrown in jail because I refuse to finance my own child's
abduction by paying the $3,000 a month child support payment
that was ruled by the Texas state court judge, effectively
rewarding Marcelle for illegally abducting my son.
There have been some small steps forward. The Government of
Brazil agrees that Nico was abducted and must return to the
United States.
In January, based on a request from the FBI, Interpol
issued a yellow notice for Nico declaring him missing and the
Brazilian Prosecutor General has opened two investigations, one
a criminal and one civil into Marcelle's wrongdoing.
But despite these developments, Nico is still not home and
there are no prospects that he will ever be returned, certainly
not anytime soon.
These have been the longest 3 years of my life. Today, I
only see Nico less than 1 percent of the time and only in the
presence of armed guards. When I do see Nico it's painfully
clear that I'm losing my son.
He doesn't speak English anymore. He doesn't remember his
grandparents or his cousins. Whatever I ask he responds like a
robot, saying Mommy doesn't like, meaning that he's not allowed
to talk to me about it.
Brazil's disregard of its international obligations and the
unwillingness of our own Government to use the maximum
resources at his disposal only add to my intense pain.
While I am grateful that the State Department has been
engaged on my case I'm incredibly disappointed that it has
failed to take any action against Brazil for its persistent
noncompliance with the Hague Convention for more than a decade.
I cannot understand how Brazil allowed to continue to flout
international law so blatantly without any repercussions.
The Goldman Act provides eight different options to the
State Department up to serious trade sanctions. In Brazil's
case we have only used one--repeated demarches--and this has
about the same level of force as a post-it note stuck to a
window.
Unless Secretary Kerry fully utilizes the Goldman Act's
arsenal, the legislation is meaningless. Now, I know that
you've heard countless left-behind parents testify to you and
ask you to think as if these children were your own.
I'm a physician and I'd like to use a different analogy, if
you will. I want you to imagine that your child is hospitalized
and they have one of these superbugs that's resistant to common
antibiotics including penicillin.
And I want you to imagine that I'm the doctor and that I
continue giving your child penicillin knowing full well that it
will not work.
I come in every day and you ask why isn't my child getting
better and I keep saying we're going to keep trying to give the
patient penicillin, knowing full well that no patient has ever
recovered by taking penicillin.
That is the Einsteinian definition of insanity--doing the
same thing over and over again and expecting a different
outcome. Brazil does not respond to demarches. They do not
respond to empathy. They do not respond to compassion. They do
not respond to logic. They do not respond to reason.
They respond to consequences. And the way that we have been
treating Brazil is absolutely insanity. As far as I know, they
have never returned a child to the U.S. through the Hague
Convention. And I'm not talking about what's been ordered or
not ordered. I'm talking about feet on the soil in the U.S.
Now, everyone in this room is going to say Sean Goldman,
Sean Goldman. But you and I both know that Sean Goldman was
returned because of a trade bill that was put on hold.
We both know that his order would not have been enforced
unless people like you or other high-level officials had
engaged directly.
Effectively, we told Brazil that the consequence of not
returning Sean Goldman would be so painful that they were
forced to return him. More can be done. More has to be done.
I, as Nico's father, will never give up on him and I'm not
asking you to do things for me that I can't do for myself.
As a physician I'm a gatekeeper between patients and life-
saving medications. And as lawmakers you're the gatekeeper
between me and the things that I cannot do for myself.
I implore my Government not to give up on him either. Nico
is a U.S. citizen. He should be in home, in the United States
with the family who loves him. I urge President Obama,
Secretary Kerry and Ambassador Jacobs to act in my case and
that of all the fine parents as if our children were your own.
This is a living death. I need your help. Nico needs your
help. There is no statute of limitations on the love for a
living child. Please do more. Please find a way to bring him
home.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Brann follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Dr. Brann.
Ms. Abbi.
STATEMENT OF MS. RUCHIKA ABBI (MOTHER OF CHILD ABDUCTED TO
INDIA)
Ms. Abbi. Good afternoon, Chairman Smith, members of the
subcommittee and officials from all other departments here as
well as my fellow left-behind parents and their supporters who
are present here in person and in spirit to advocate the return
of our abducted children.
My name is Rachika Abbi and I'm a permanent resident of
U.S., a citizen of India residing in Chantilly, Virginia. My
daughter, Roshni Seth, she is a U.S citizen and she was a mere
6\1/2\ years of age when she was abducted to India by her own
father and he refused to come back and bring her back home.
I have been desperately seeking Roshni's return for over 2
years. I was in India for almost 1\1/2\ years. I have been
seeking her return to her home country where she was uprooted
from, based on multiple court orders, not just from U.S. but
also from Indian courts. But Roshni stays separated from me.
She is deprived of my love and care and she is held as a
hostage thousands of miles away.
I am often seen carrying this teddy bear and maybe judged
as well. Not many people know that what I carry is my hope, my
hope which will be deferred. It gets dwindled from time to time
but I strive really hard to keep it alive, to revive it and
keep it alive every single second, every single minute, every
single day.
Roshni's bear, Riley, was actually abducted, or you may
want to say, she accompanied her when she was taken and I was
in India with Roshni and couldn't bring her back and Roshni
sent her bear back with me, telling me Mama, I can't go back
home but please take Riley home.
Roshni's bear made it back. She stands with Roshni and I am
moving heaven and earth here to bring Roshni home as well.
It's not just Roshni. There are so many children out there
who are victims of international parental child abduction, a
crime committed not by a stranger but by one's own parent.
These children are wrongfully abducted and detained in
different parts of the globe, robbed of a loving parent and
normal childhood.
My heart goes out to all these children and their seeking
parents across this nation. I am advocating the immense need to
eradicate this global curse of international parental child
abduction.
I'm an active member of Bring our Kids Home and the
underlying message in my testimony is that parents of American
children like me, victims of international parenting kidnapping
to India, is enormous and often insurmountable obstacles in
seeking the return of our children.
We receive little assistance from the U.S. Government and
no assistance at all from the Indian Government. Despite the
fact that these cases have been lingering for years.
I'm here today asking for help--your help. I'm asking that
our children be returned home to the United States without
further delay.
In the recent report on IPCA, India was called out as one
of the over 20 countries who have been showing patterns of
noncompliance resolving these open cases of abduction.
India is persistently failing to work with the U.S. to
resolve abduction cases and does not adhere to any protocols
with respect to these cases.
By December 31, 2015, 83 reported abductions remained open,
which represent almost 94 abducted children. Sadly, my daughter
Roshni is one of these 94 abducted children--94 unfortunate
children who are called out as open abduction cases in this
report.
I have been in the U.S. since the year 2000 and was blessed
with Roshni on Christmas Eve on 2007. She was an active 6-year-
old Girl Scout Daisy. She was loved by her parents and
neighbors. She was attending kindergarten school in South
Riding, Virginia. She enjoyed piano and swimming lessons. She
was having the time of her life. She was blossoming, growing
up.
But all of a sudden on April 15, 2014, 2 years ago, when I
was traveling for an overnight business trip, I was in North
Carolina. She was surreptitiously taken by own father to New
Delhi, India.
I left in the morning, handing her over to him, as I would
normally do whenever I went to travel. And in the evening I was
trying to reach her on FaceTime and phone and nobody responded
and I just had chills.
I started called friends and neighbors frantically only to
realize that I was facing the worst fear of my life. Once
inseparable, she wouldn't stay without me even for a few
minutes. But now she was snatched away all of a sudden from me.
Looking back, I still shudder at the very thought of the
night when I flew back to Virginia. Imagine coming back to the
silence and emptiness of the abandoned home.
It was left with nothing, nothing but memories and
belongings of my only daughter suddenly taken across
international borders. Her toys were all over, her bicycle was
lying outside, and there was nothing else in that house.
I was grieving that day. I was grieving as if--you know,
she was alive but I was grieving because I knew he was not
coming back. I knew he was not bringing Roshni back. He
abandoned the house, the marriage, of course, the marital debt,
his employment, his permanent residency status. He abandoned
everything and just disappeared.
In this case--in my abduction case it was not in defiance
of any custody order. It was not a refusal from, a return from
a vacation in India. It was a preplanned successfully executed
kidnapping of my daughter.
Two years before abduction he was arrested for domestic
violence which took place in front of Roshni and then she also
witnessed his arrest for DUI. And during the probation he had
multiple violations for which he was facing criminal charges
and even jail time. And Roshni continued to witness this
discord, disagreements as I succumbed to the emotional,
physical, and verbal abuse. But I could never muster the
courage to get out. I couldn't have done what he did to me.
Given his threats, I also enrolled Roshni in the CPIAP
program. But due to pressure I had to give my consent for her
passport renewal.
I really wish when the Department of State called me for my
consent and I asked them, given the situation, if at all this
happens, if she is taken away will you be able to help me get
her back and they said we do have measures in place and we will
be by your side.
I really hoped. They told me if you see that imminent
threat to her abduction, do not renew her passport. I know I
wasn't able to safeguard the passport but I wish they told me--
I wish they told the pandemic nature of this issue--how many
cases are unresolved, how parents go through the trauma and
they're not able to bring their children back.
I wish they told me and I wish there were certain travel
alerts in place for parents or exit controls for children who
have ever been entered into this program. In my case, she was
entered.
Yes, I gave my consent. But then if there was some alert
this could have been averted. But it was too late. I had lost
her already.
And my only recourse was legal and, you know, ongoing legal
battle in U.S. and India. For 27 months I have been running
from pillar to post. I have embroiled myself in international
legal proceedings.
I have faced extreme hardships at various fronts: emotional
and financial and the harsh reality of navigating the legal
system in India that is largely insensitive to parents of child
abductions and ill-equipped to deliver from justice.
During this time, the access to Roshni was curtailed for
prolonged periods and as of now I have not seen her or even had
a glimpse of her in the last 7 months.
I had a custody order from Loudoun County Circuit Court. It
gave me sole legal and physical temporary emergency custody and
also stated that Loudoun County Circuit Court has both subject
and personal matter jurisdiction over the father and the mother
and full authority for my child's custody determination.
Desperately seeking reunion with my daughter, I immediately
went to India. This was 4 months after the abduction. I filed a
writ of habeas corpus and in my case by God's grace I did get
her interim custody back.
But there were restrictions on her travel. I couldn't bring
her back. I had gone for a few weeks. I thought I would be
going back and forth.
But then I had my daughter but I was trapped. Roshni was
with me at my parents' house for the first 8 months and I was
stranded and I fought jurisdiction challenges in Indian courts.
But because of financial hardships I just couldn't keep up.
I had to travel back and that took a toll on my child. She was
heartbroken when I told her that I'll have to leave you with my
parents.
But I assured her I would come back for you and take you
back to where you belong. But after that, once I left she was
abducted again. The father took her for visitation and refused
to send her back to my parents' house.
After that, I just couldn't reunite with her. I got an
order from the Supreme Court of India that stated when the
mother comes back she will get the custody and at that time
considering her plight I dropped everything again and I went
back.
But the father will obeyed the order. He told me you can
come with any order from any court with armed forces--I am not
handing Roshni back over to you. That's what he told me
literally. I was standing on the street. And during this period
it was almost for 7 months I stayed there. Roshni was called to
Supreme Court of India multiple times. Once she was called in
open court. I was sitting like this and she had to walk up to
the judges to answer maybe the hardest question of her life--
dad or mom.
She didn't look at me in my eye. I wasn't allowed to go and
embrace my own daughter. I wasn't allowed to console her. I was
told no, she is traumatized and she was sent back to the
father, to the abducting parent because she was traumatized and
the mother wasn't allowed to console her.
Obviously, in those months she was--she was showing signs
of parent alienation and again I lost her. This time it was to
parent alienation. After 7 months she was called again for
another in chamber hearing, the fourth one, and the case was
disposed of.
They sent me back to family court. So high court, family
court--I went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court went back
to family court and I'm still just going through the legal
proceedings.
While the justices delayed here, I am still hoping every
single day that in the end it will be denied. She remains
wrongfully detained in India without a valid U.S. passport
because I cancelled her passport and without an Indian visa the
absconding father was rewarded with her custody. He is not even
employed.
The courts in India took a straightforward child abduction
case and turned it into a complex international legal web. It's
like going to emergency room asking for medical help for a
bleeding finger and doctors end up performing an open heart
surgery on you literally without even giving you anesthesia.
I feel legally humiliated, emotionally exhausted by lack of
laws and awareness, systemic delays, and insensitivity of the
judicial in India. But most importantly, it's the suffering our
children are going through. It is unpardonable. The
psychological trauma and ordeal that my little girl has
suffered for over the past 2 years it just gives me chills.
Parental alienation is child abuse. Abduction is child
abuse. How can child abuse go unpunished for so long by not one
but two countries? How can Roshni's government--the U.S.
Government--fail her? Why is the U.S. so powerless? We parents
do not understand this at all.
U.S. is so powerless in helping her own children and
citizens. Why? How could the world's largest democracy, India,
who has such great ties with the U.S., how can it be a safe
haven for child abductors?
I'm sorry. I may be going a little over time. But I just
want to highlight a few systemic challenges here as well before
I close my testimony.
Left-behind parents, regardless of their gender, ethnicity,
nationality, they face extreme challenges in India seeking the
return of their kids. Indian courts often choose to relitigate
custody decision already made in the best interest of child by
courts where the child was residing prior to abduction.
And most of all, the left-behind parents rarely get access
to their children and the children are systematically alienated
and that is what happened in my case. They are alienated from
their parents and all this is done in the name of welfare of
children.
I really want to underscore that even in the instances like
mine where a left-behind parent gets a favorable order, these
orders are ignored. They are violated. They are appealed for
years and they are even reversed in some cases. That happened
to me.
Every parent's nightmare is the fatal loss of their child.
It's the harsh reality of IPCA. I really want to call out this
one case here that we heard of in April 2016.
The tragic and mysterious death of the 6-year-old American
child. Her name is Kiara. She was in wrongful custody of her
mother in Mumbai. This should be a wake-up call to both our
governments. There are much needed urgent and decisive actions
that need to be done to protect victimized children from harsh
realities of IPCA.
Kiara's father had her sole custody from the U.S. and also
from India but the order got appealed and Kiara met with an
unnatural death during the pendency of these proceedings.
Also, India's duplicitous treatment on IPCA cases depending
on whether they are inbound or outbound doubts about India's
commitment to upholding the rule of law, rights of children and
families.
For years we have been informed that India does not
recognize parental abduction as a crime and often treats our
cases as routine child custody cases.
But then on the other hand, there was a recent outbound
child abduction case and that shows that Indian court and law
enforcement do in fact recognize parental child abductions as a
crime and they'll not hesitate to apply any legal tools to
return to seek the return of abducted children from other
nations.
So outbound abductions are obviously treated and we do not
understand this bias. The Chief Justice of India recently made
a public remark about left-behind fathers and he said that
Indian court orders could not be mechanically enforced by
Indian courts.
He said U.S. courts have a different approach. Can Indian
courts ignore the situation where the mother of her child was
not represented in the U.S. court and was incapable of doing so
on account of paucity of means?
He said pointing out that situation the welfare of the
child would weigh with the Indian court. I do not understand
this. Why is there a bias? Why are they talking about left-
behind parents as fathers? It's both. It's fathers and mothers.
Also, highlighting cultural and gender bias and I will
close soon. Indian officials state that India has a
responsibility to protect those who are fleeing from abuse from
other nations.
There's a euphemism used to describe the situation that
women of Indian origin who claim abuse in countries of their
habitual residence after reaching India they seek criminal and
civil remedies in India by filing charges against, in most
cases, their estranged spouses, estranged husbands.
As a victim of domestic violence, I do empathize with
anyone who has suffered consequences of DV. However, as a law
abiding citizen, I do not support child abductions in the name
of escaping abuse from DV, especially those mothers who abduct
their children to India from United States where there are
robust protections for victims of DV.
The negative consequence on child abductions on victimized
children cannot be justified by any allegations and for the
Government of India to not offer any protection to our
victimized children and failure to hold child abductors
accountable has no moral or legal standing.
India's Ministry of Women and Child Development is the key
ministry tasked to address the issue of IPCA in India. But MWCD
appears so speak on all sides of the IPCA debate, thereby
raising serious doubts about its commitment to protecting
children's rights distinctly from its efforts re women's
empowerment in India.
I continue to seek justice in Roshni's return. I continue
to work and pay off the old and new debt. Roshni's father
continues to hold our daughter as a captive, block all her
access, damage my relationship with her beyond repair and erase
me from her life.
I'm really scared at times that she may think that I have
abandoned her. So from these hallowed halls of the U.S.
Congress I really want to implore my estranged husband,
Roshni's father, in words of the great Indian poet, Tagore, by
plucking her petals you do not gather the beauty of the flower.
By snatching Roshni you are only despoiling her in a sense her
childhood, her womanhood, and for Roshni I just want to tell
her that I really love you and you may be miles apart but you
are you always will be a part of me and no one can abduct that
feeling from me. No one can steal that feeling from me.
I am hoping that by sharing my personal story today I am
not just seeking Roshni's return but I am also seeking the
return of Alfred, Albert, Reyansh, Abdallah, Nikitha, Vihaan,
Indira, Rhea, Trisha, Pranav, Kireeti, Krish, Kashvi, Archit,
Ishaan, Siva Kumar, Avantika, Aryan and the list goes on.
I am seeking return of these voiceless American children
who are being denied the love of their left-behind mother or
father whose human rights continue to be violated in a nation
that we all admire, the one that shares our value and yet is
unable to deliver justice to innocent victims of this crime.
I plead the U.S. Government, the Government of India, the
Department of State to intervene here, to interject, to do
whatever it takes and help us bring our kids home.
Thank you, Chairman Smith, for your continuing efforts and
staying by our side and thank you for giving this opportunity
to speak on behalf of Roshni and our children.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Abbi follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you so very, very much for your testimony
and obviously this subcommittee--this chairman will continue to
push.
Mr. Cook.
STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES COOK (FATHER OF CHILDREN ABDUCTED TO
JAPAN)
Mr. Cook. Good afternoon, Chairman Smith, all subcommittee
members and all those affected by the issue of international
parental child abduction in attendance today and those watching
around the world.
I am very sorry we know each other in this way. I am James
Cook and today is the 2-year anniversary of our four children
arriving in Japan.
They are two sets of twins. Later this month will be the 1-
year anniversary of my Hague application to them to return to
Minnesota.
In this time, I have visited our children once and then
slowly all contact was unilaterally severed from Japan.
The last contact or reply from our children was late August
2015. I have been constantly involved in my children's lives.
Now, they have been made to believe I am dangerous and seek to
do them harm. Children, who knew me as the unconditionally
loving parent no matter what, have been led to believe I seek
to avenge the alienation.
Children who knew me as the parent that hugged them, kissed
them on forehead, and in so many ways communicated my
unconditional acceptance of them as people have been told to
fear me and deny my attempts at access.
I understand their situation and I know the choices they
had to make to survive. But the emotional pain still remains.
Perhaps the greatest sadness I have is the realization that our
children will have long-term issues to resolve as human beings
subjected to captivity and denied the fundamental connection to
their parent that is necessary for healthy development.
Please note, I will not mention or share our children's
names in my testimony to protect their privacy. They are
innocent and do not deserve any more trauma from this
abduction.
My testimony today will be divided into three sections.
First, I will read an open letter to our children because I
have been blocked from any access or means of communication
with them.
It's my hope that the video of this testimony will be shown
or made available to them in Japan because this is the only
means I have of reaching them anymore.
Second, I'll provide you a view into the Hague
implementation in Japan as I experienced the process. And
third, I will offer brief recommendations to the committee.
Hey, guys. This is Papa.
I'm so very sorry for all you've been put through as a
result of what has happened. You've had to make choices out of
dependency and harmony within Ba-Chan and Ji-Chan's home. I
understand those choices and I'm not angry at you or seeking
revenge against anyone, as you may have been told.
Every day of your absence starts for me the realization
that you are not in our house and you are gone. Nothing has
changed in any of your rooms. They remain just as you left
them.
The light blue bedroom still has the blue marker on the
closet wall and the night stand drawer still smells like Count
Chocula that you poured in there for yourself. The only
evidence of what you did was the empty plastic cereal bag you
left on your floor.
Your closet has all your unopened toys sitting on the shelf
and the mixture of socks from which you created your unique
pairing each day. I want you to know I did not see you break
it. So I agree you did not break it. Also Papa always carries a
pencil in his car now. I love your individuality and
personality. I want to possess the calm confidence in yourself
that you do.
The pink bedroom still has your ``Frozen'' sticker book and
plastic purple unicorn on the night stand. Auntie Laura stayed
in your room one night and she had cried because you were gone,
but it looked like you were there.
Like me, she expected to see you come into your room at any
time, at any moment. Big Bear is still in your closet next to
your dress-up clothes and your Barbies are still stashed in
various drawers of your dresser.
On my phone I carry the video of you dancing for me in the
back hall of our school during the spring music concert. I love
your happiness and unbelievable self confidence. I want to be
fearless like you.
In the green bedroom both of your beds are just as they
were when you went to the airport. On your long dresser still
sit your architectural Lego buildings. I've dusted them a few
times.
The perfectly drawn sketch of a hand still hangs above the
bookshelf that holds all the Doraemon comic books you've read
several times.
The baseballs and numerous athletic and musical trophies
are just as you left them. Your Pikachu alarm clock still ticks
away, waiting to be used to wake you guys.
I see violin sheet music and our piano and I nearly weep
sometimes. Thing one--I love how you started playing piano
every morning. The dedication and commitment you have always
made to being better, smarter and the best you I admire. You
will suck the marrow out of life by experiencing all that you
can.
I want your discipline and determination. Thing two--I
admire your kindness and empathy toward others. I think of you
when I need to be my best self and imagine what you would do.
I cried for the first time in a while when I wrote this
because my heart aches without you. I went into your closet and
I saw multiple bags of clothes packed in haste. I think I know
why those were packed and likely the mood under which you were
told to pack. I am so sorry you had to experience being
complicit in your own abduction.
I told you it was only a vacation. What you experienced
told you otherwise. You guys were 11. I am sorry I did not see
what you saw. I know you were told not to say anything to me.
I don't know how that affected you or damaged your self but
I ache with you in that pain. I want you to know I have never
stopped working for your return and everything I have done was
to get you back home no matter what you have been told.
You have been denied a critical relationship at a critical
time in your lives. It's only later in life you will understand
the lasting impact of losing our connection during this time. I
know this and I wish others did.
Do you think about our adventures to AEON from years ago? I
know it was only to go eat Pepper Lunch at the food court and
play Mario Cart until I ran out of 100 yen coins.
Those were fun adventures. Remember our trip to Tokyo
Disneyland 6 years ago and riding the shinkansen? Just the
three of us guys eating 550 yen or 150 yen shinkansen ice cream
and having fun. You guys were nervous because you weren't sure
I really understood Japanese. But as with most things it all
turned out for the best.
When I came to Japan to visit in October I remember riding
back for Kyoto to Tokyo with you two little guys sitting my
lap. As tired as I was and jetlagged, it was the best
shinkansen ride I can ever remember. I miss holding you two
little guys and attempting to do pushups while you try to ride
me like a horse. I miss carrying you on my shoulders and
holding your little hands so you wouldn't use my face as a
handle.
I will come to pick you up and bring you home very soon.
Please be ready and make it easy for everyone by cooperating
when I come.
I love you guys. I'll never stop until you are back home
with me. I want you back. Love, Papa.
Section two--in July 14, 2014, Hitomi Arimitsu of Nara,
Japan--my wife, and our four children arrived in Japan for a 6-
week vacation.
Prior to her departure, I drafted a simple agreement
between her and I. I indicated my consent for her to travel
with our children and a specific return by date of August 29,
2014.
This agreement was drafted with her knowledge, signed by
both of us and notarized and was supposed to be part of her
travel documents.
Needless to say, she did not return and has been
continuously aided and harbored by her parents, Yukinori and
Hiroko Arimitsu of Nara, Japan. Mr. Yukinori and Hiroko
Arimitsu and his family own Arimitsu Industry Company, Limited
of the Higashinari-ku area of Osaka, Japan.
In September, 2014, I clearly stated my plan to Hitomi to
bring our children back to U.S. in December 2014. Hitomi
refused and ceased communications with me. In October 2014, I
visited Tokyo, Japan to visit our children for a 3-day weekend
to go to Tokyo Disneyland and Disney Sea. My mother visited
everyone in Japan in December 2014 prior to Christmas and she
reported back to me that our children were different and seemed
negative toward me.
It was deeply upsetting to my mother that Hitomi had
exerted significant undue influence over our children and
significant parental alienation was obvious.
In January, 2015, I commenced divorce proceedings against
Hitomi in Hennepin County court for the sole purpose to force
our children's return.
Minnesota has a service first requirement and I followed
the Hague process with Japan for service. The result was a 4-
month delay of service that my local court used to deny
jurisdiction over custody of our children.
Had Hitomi been present in Minnesota the service would have
been days, not the 4 months caused by the Japanese central
authority.
I immediately sought out other avenues to our children's
return with significant assistance and guidance from the
Department of State.
I began my Hague application on July 23, 2015. It was
received on August 4, 2015 at the Department of State. The
application was then forwarded to and received by Japan's
central authority, the JCA, on August 7 and accepted officially
on August 10, 2015. I had prima facie proved my Hague case.
The legal case once started was to take 6 weeks according
to Hague guidelines. The legal case started in August 19, 2015,
when my legal team filed the return petition to Osaka family
court. Two weeks later on September 4, 2015, the first hearing
of our case was held and I was present in Osaka family court in
Japan for this hearing.
Hitomi was not in attendance and manipulated the court by
saying I was dangerous and they should have extra security.
I purposely added 2 extra days over the weekend to allow
for meeting our children. Hitomi refused to cooperate with my
request and told me my children were afraid of me.
It's odd that the longer our children are away from me the
more afraid and distrustful of me they have become. This is de
facto parental alienation.
Court investigators, or social workers, interviewed our
children the following week. In the invitation sent to our
children, the investigators explained what was going to occur
and provided them significant information in advance.
As a result, our children were very well prepped to answer
exactly as they were coached by Hitomi. This included a
recollection by our younger children about an event that
happened prior to the conception.
The second hearing of her case was held on September 30 to
provide a status update for all parties. Neither Hitomi nor I
were in attendance. This was the 6 week point the process.
Our third hearing on October 13, a year to the day when I
last saw our children in person was the trial hearing in front
of the Hague three-judge panel.
I added extra days over the weekend to this trip, again, to
allow me time to meet with our children and again I was refused
a meeting. I was even refused FaceTime or any type of
communication.
Under the Hague Convention, I am guaranteed some amount of
access. If Hitomi doesn't want to do it she doesn't and Japan
lacks the enforcement powers to make her comply.
The first decision in our case came on October 30, 2015.
The Osaka family court determined I had satisfied all Hague
criteria for all four children but they only ordered the return
of our two youngest children and used the court's discretion to
overrule the Hague required return of our older children.
The court deemed our 12-year-old sons to be of
sophistication and sound mind to object. I am sure the
Solomonesque splitting of the baby made sense to the
pragmatically minded court. It appeared our children were
little more than property to be divided.
This was the 10th week of the case. The decision of the
Osaka family court was appealed to Osaka high court by both
Hitomi and myself in the first part of November.
Let me repeat, in the first part of November. With no
decision yet from the Osaka high court, on December 24 I filed
for mediation to see if there was an alternative path to
resolution and Hitomi refused to participate. So any solution
via mediation was ended on January 18, 2016. No enforcement
requiring her to participate. This marked the 25th week of our
case.
On January 28, 2016, Osaka high court rendered their
decision in which they affirmed the lower court's decision and
additionally ordered my older children, now 13 years old,
returned, citing the psychological damage from splitting
siblings.
This decision came in the 26th week, \1/2\ year since the
first court filing. The Assistant Secretary of State for
Consular Affairs Bond was recently quoted in a major Japanese
newspaper saying the legal process in Japan takes too long. My
case is evidence and I now know my experience thus far was not
unusual.
This is not compliant with the Hague guidelines for
expidient at all. During this time, my children were being
alienated against me with no means of interim access to them.
This lack of access is in violation of the Hague and as such
Japan, again, is noncompliant.
A week later Hitomi filed an appeal to Japan's Supreme
Court and I filed for a warning from Osaka family court to
Hitomi to comply with the Hague return order.
This was the first of many steps that must be filed for
enforcement of a decision--the first of many steps.
I thought that a justly rendered and affirmed court order
was enough to complete my Hague process. I was not even close
to the end. Japan's family law system lacks strong enforcement
power and contempt can be identified in many cases.
The warning was issued to Hitomi with no result. Hitomi
lost her appeal in Japan's Supreme Court later in February. I
thought for sure this would be the end and our children would
soon be heading back or I was going to pick them up.
Again, not even close. The next enforcement step was filing
for indirect enforcement--financial penalty. Hitomi appealed
this and eventually lost this appeal too. The impactful portion
of this indirect enforcement is the per diem fine due the
petitioner, me in this case.
HItomi was ordered to pay me a per child fine every day
until the children are returned to the U.S. Hitomi, of course,
is in contempt of this order and refuses to acknowledge or pay
the debt that had been accruing since March 21, 2016. Japan
even lacks enforcement powers over their own enforcement
powers.
The next step to enforcement is direct enforcement. Hitomi
had appealed the direct enforcement decision and lost.
I have never heard of an abductor being able to appeal
enforcement of a dually rendered court decision. I'm submitting
for the written record in my testimony a translation of the
Japanese Hague implementation articles relating to the
enforcement and to save time let me quickly summarize or give a
quick interpretation of what's allowed. The court bailee can
use whatever force is required to enter the house in pursuit of
children.
Once in the house, the bailee can restrain or remove any
adult persons that are physically capable of restraining the
children.
At this point, the bailee's power only extends to
requesting the children to voluntarily come with the bailee.
Neither the bailee nor I are allowed to touch the children in
the act of enforcement.
Imagine this scenario as viewed by a child. Loud knocking
at the door and the quick look outside reveals court personnel
and possibly law enforcement. Panic ensues in the adults,
particularly your mother. The knocking gets louder and the door
may have even have been broken down to gain access to the
house.
With a broken down door and a screaming hysterical mother,
the official-looking person enters the house. Once inside the
official or police officer physically removes your mother from
holding onto you and she is pulled away.
This person that just tore your mother away from you now
asks you if you will come with him to see your father who is
waiting outside to take you away. What do you think the child
will say? Yes?
If the bailee determines that the children will never agree
to come voluntarily then the enforcement attempt is
unsuccessful and ended. This has happened in another Hague
case.
Yes. All it takes is for children to persist in saying no
to foil direct enforcement. I am now 51 weeks into this process
and both my attorneys in Japan and the Department of State are
telling me to spend the time, emotion, expense, and hope to
make this attempt.
Their collective advice in the event of most certain
failure is to try again and again and again and again. Why does
Japan require such a traumatic event for a child in
enforcement?
In our case the Japanese courts have deemed that the
children should be returned. A high court order with the
Supreme Court declining to hear the case and no further appeals
permitted. This flawed enforcement process should not be a
reason or a means for Japan to evade its international
obligation to comply with the Hague Convention on international
child abduction.
Quite simply, this should not prevent the return of our
children to their rightful home with their father in the United
States. I implore our government to address this issue with the
appropriate Japanese authorities without delay, distraction for
ambiguous diplomacy.
The final step of my Hague process may be habeas corpus
proceeding if direct enforcement fails. This step is not part
of Hague convention. It is a patch to fix the known direct
enforcement problems systemic in Japan.
The Goldman Act report just released this week addressed
the direct enforcement problem and states the non-compliance of
Japan on page 32. I followed the process, endured the
extraordinary slowness, received favorable court decisions in
every instance been without our children and them without me
this whole time and then at the end of this I am left to rely
upon a highly traumatizing act as my path to returning our
children.
As Japan has designed it, I must remove our children under
the Hague Convention in full view of their hysterical mother
and that being the lasting image in their minds. Why make our
children or any child suffer even more for the actions of their
parent? This is beyond cruel and inhuman. Hitomi's wealthy
parents, Yukinori and Hiroko Arimitsu, have been paying her
legal bills and harboring her and our children in contempt of
multiple court orders and in violation of international
treaties their country ratified and acceded to.
Mr. Yukinori Arimitsu's company, Hiroko Arimitsu, Arimitsu
Industry Company, Limited, of the Higashinari-ku area of Osaka,
Japan, I have been told has influence within Japan, and I
cannot determine the degree to which the company has been
complicit in the abduction.
I was told of one special favor gained many years ago by an
employee at the direction of Mr. Arimitsu to manipulate
official government records to benefit Hitomi by allowing her
to remain eligible for government benefits despite being
married to a foreigner.
I am concerned the same meddling is going on or is possible
to circumvent enforcement. The JCA must not allow this type of
cheating to continue if Japan wants to be respected
internationally.
Mr. Yukinori Arimitsu, Hitomi Arimitsu are a threat to
Japan's integrity internationally.
Section three--my written testimony goes into greater
detail but I will mention some concepts to consider. Unlike the
U.S., Hague decisions are not public in Japan. So each case has
to proceed blind of any precedent unless experienced attorneys
are willing to cooperate and receive permission from their
clients.
I recommend the Department of State provide a resource that
catalogues the successful and unsuccessful individual cases in
order to build the case law outside of Japan.
Data privacy concerns can be managed with redaction of
sensitive information. Additionally, I recommend a summary of
the successful arguments and circumstances be compiled and be
made available to left-behind parents in the process. I imagine
that the National Center of Missing and Exploited Children
could fulfill this role very well if chosen.
Another point--the Goldman Act enumerates powers or actions
available for enforcement with the recalcitrant country. I
would like to suggest that these powers be made enforceable on
a case by case basis instead of a global annual review that we
have come to be seen can be held, influenced and manipulated.
Resolution of the larger issue will come one victory at a time.
Let's have enforcement and sanctions at the individual case
level. This committee and the greater Congress can come
together to tighten the vague language in the Goldman Act and
remove much of the Department of State's discretion in imposing
sanctions.
Allow the Department of State to use their diplomatic
efforts to inform and impart legislative decisions instead of
allowing diplomacy to mitigate or avoid consequences.
I recommend the chairman order the delivery of the original
version of the Goldman Act report that was completed by April
30, 2016 deadline. All edits to the original must be attributed
and explained if the released versions differs from the
original.
In conclusion, I eagerly want the quickest proper return of
our four children by the least traumatic means to their home in
Minnesota, U.S., their habitual residence, their legal home
state since birth. Then we can rebuild our relationships and
resume our lives as a family together.
Thank you, Chairman Smith, for this opportunity today and
your continuing efforts to address this form of human rights
violation.
Your staff has been very helpful and I want to recognize
their efforts publicly. A special level and type of thank you
to all the left-behind parents and their aggregated efforts to
move the issue to this point. It's on their collective
shoulders I stand before you today. I am very sorry we all know
each other in this way. To all left-behind parents watching
this hearing, every one of our victories leads a path to the
recovery of your children. You are not alone.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cook follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Mr. Cook, thank you very, very much and I hope
and pray that all of your children of all the left-behind
parents are returned as quickly as possible and that someday
they see not just what you did here and the love that you've
exhibited for your children, all of you, and the others in the
audience and others who are not here but all of the efforts.
If ever there was a Herculean effort I have seen it time
and time again from one parent after another who just have left
no stone unturned in trying to bring their children home.
So again, I want to thank you and for your very specific
recommendations. They are excellent.
Ms. Barbirou.
STATEMENT OF MS. EDEANNA BARBIROU (MOTHER OF CHILD ABDUCTED TO
TUNISIA)
Ms. Barbirou. Chairman Smith, thank you for committing your
time today to address this issue of international parental
child abduction, which I will continue to refer to as IPCA, for
brevity, and the implementation of the Goldman Act.
I would also like to extend my gratitude to Ms.
Christensen, who testified earlier today. She also mentioned a
case she wouldn't name by name but that a lot of activity had
been occurring a day after one parent had called and said
activity was happening.
That was my case. So I'd like to extend gratitude to her
for knowing what was happening and explaining that. And also to
my fellow parents who sit with me today. I have held back so
much emotion on my own and for your own stories and your own
children you just--you have touched my heart in so many ways,
even knowing that I can clearly identify with everything you've
been going through. So thank you for your testimony.
And I offer that mine won't differ very much because all of
our stories have so many common elements. So with that, as many
of you know the enactment of this legislation, the Goldman Act,
is of vital importance to the thousands of children who become
victims of IPCA in our country each year.
For many parents seeking the return of their illegally
kidnapped children abroad, the Goldman Act is a source of hope
in the otherwise dim realities that our lives become after our
children are snatched from our lives, and theirs, exposed to
the horrors of a life on the run, often aided by the
governments of the foreign lands to which they are kidnapped.
It is a source of hope that finally the right tools will be
utilized to secure justice for our innocent children, ensuring
the full force of the American Government to secure their
rights of protection as citizens to return home where they
belong.
That is the power, purpose and hope embodied in the Goldman
Act that has brought us here today. I am honored to have been
invited to testify today after having sat before this very
committee for the same purpose just 1 year ago.
I'm also terribly saddened, personally that I return and
that my son, Eslam, remains illegally detained in Tunisia. I am
also saddened for the thousands of children who remain abducted
or detained as hostages in foreign lands around the globe.
Exactly 4 years, 8 months and 3 days ago, my children,
Eslam and Zainab Chebbi, were illegally abducted to Tunisia by
their father, a Tunisian native. At the time of their kidnaping
in 2011 I had full custody of both children and retained a
judicial order preventing either of us from traveling outside
of the United States with either child.
In January 2012 I boarded a plane to Tunisia to be close to
my children while I pursued the application of my U.S. divorce
and custody documents in order to bring them home.
At the time, I was promised by my then Tunisian counsel
that I would be in Tunis for a total of 3 weeks and could
return with both children to the United States in that time. It
was 10 months before I could obtain a first ruling through the
Tunisian judiciary upholding my rights of custody of Eslam and
Zainab here in the United States.
A few months later in May 2013 a Tunisian appellate court
ruled for enforcement of Eslam and Zainab's return to me in the
United States.
By August of that year, I was assured of pending
enforcement and a return home with both children. In the face
of what had by this time accumulated into extensive
interventions by the Department of State, the Department of
Justice and multiple Members of Congress, I chose to believe.
Based on this belief, I decided to honor by daughter
Zainab's wishes not to return to her father following a weekend
visit and to rely on the legal process for enforcement for our
reunification with Eslam.
I made that decision in September 2013 and Eslam has
remained isolated from his sister and I ever since. Due to
intentional interference by the Tunisian Government to prevent
enforcement of its own court's judicial order, Eslam remains
illegally detained as we continue to seek enforcement of that
2013 appellate court judgment upheld by the Supreme Court of
Tunisia in 2014, today.
Due to illegal extrajudicial interference, Zainab and I
last saw and hugged Eslam exactly 2 years and 15 days ago. She
and I returned to the United States without Eslam in August
2014.
Within the past 2 years, we received a second Tunisian
primary judgment granting custody of Eslam and Zainab to me in
the United States and a second appellate court ruling for
enforcement of Eslam's return home to our family in the United
States. These are all Tunisian judgments. There are five now.
In March of this year, the Tunisian Ministry of Justice
informed the U.S. Consulate and Embassy staff that this
judgement would be issued and enforced leading to Eslam's
return home to us in the United States by the end of May.
Clearly, that timeframe has passed. The entirety of these 4
years, 8 months and 3 days since Eslam and Zainab were
kidnapped from our home, the State Department, the FBI and
numerous esteemed Members of Congress have mounted incredible
diplomatic and political efforts in support of our family with
the Tunisian Government for its adherence to a rule of law and
compliance with its new enacted constitution for enforcement of
its court's judicial rulings and Eslam's return home.
My family is ever grateful for these necessary and powerful
steps. Yet while we applaud these great efforts we continue to
accrue judicial order after judicial order. The Tunisian
Government continues to provide baseless assurances and Eslam
remains illegally detained in Tunisia.
I wish to step away from our family circumstances for a
moment and return to the Goldman Act and address you as an
advocate for our innocent children, the true victims of this
crime.
According to the FBI, more than six children are reported
as abducted by a parent in this country every day. Previous
State Department statistics indicate that more than half of
these children are kidnapped to foreign lands.
In 2014, Congress unanimously voted and the President
signed into law this powerful legislation that protects the
rights of our abducted American children by ensuring that the
strongest penalties will be rendered in the face of their
prevented return to their homes here in the United States.
Clearly, the U.S. Government fully believed that the powers
embodied by the Goldman Act were varied, necessary, and
sufficient enough to secure the immediate return of the
thousands of American children victimized by IPCA each year.
Yet, to this day, the Goldman Act has only been enforced to the
least extent possible and mostly in demand and review of annual
compliance reports.
In turning to the 2015 compliance report, I would like to
applaud the great strides that have been taken to present a
clearer and more honest picture of what is occurring with our
abducted children abroad.
In it, we have a stronger glimpse not only of what actions
have been taken in each country where American children have
been kidnapped, but also of the recommended steps toward
improved resolution of abduction cases in the future.
Sadly, not only was this report delivered late but it also
leaves the same alarming concerns regarding the enactment of
this law that I addressed before this subcommittee just 1 year
ago.
After reviewing the 2015 report, I have no clearer
understanding of how many children have been kidnapped
internationally by a parent from the United States and whether
there has been an increase, decrease or no change in the
incidence of this crime.
Simply providing an accounting of cases without identifying
a total number of children affected does not bring us any
closer to an understanding of the breadth of this crime on the
American public.
By my count, it takes an average of 5 years to secure the
return of a child who has been abducted by a parent
internationally, if a return ever occurs.
Previous State Department statistics indicate that only 18
percent of IPCA cases result in a return. Considering that the
average age of abduction is between 6 months to 6 years, we
must understand the devastating reality that for those lucky
enough to return home they will have spent half of their lives
as captives on the run.
As Ms. Abbi's testimony exemplified, having every available
statistic about the number of children impacted by this vicious
crime is imperative to every prevention and return effort
embodied in this act.
Second, not once did any of the descriptions of actions
taken with any of the cited countries or the recommendations
for future action incorporate any of the prescribed options
three through eight as required to be taken with respect to
noncompliant countries per Section 202(d) of the Goldman Act.
Here forward, I'm going to refer to these as the 202(d) actions
for brevity.
In fact, I have not witnessed one instance where any agency
within our Government has utilized the authorities of actions
granted through the Goldman Act to implement any of the 202(d)
actions to be taken with respect to noncompliant countries.
Respectfully, our children's lives do not rest on the
actions of one governmental department but on the collective
action and escalating action of all government agencies
wielding both their combined and independent powers.
There has to come a point where every representative of the
U.S. Government becomes accountable for the implementation of
202(d) actions to secure the immediate return of abducted
American children.
As Dr. Brann has already stated, Sean Goldman himself was
not reunited with his father on U.S. soil based on the actions
of any one agency within our Government. It took coordinated
interventions across multiple agencies and congressional action
to prevent a financial exchange with Brazil to secure his
return home.
It is my understanding that the lessons learned from the
Goldman case were embodied in this act with the implicit
intention of securing immediate returns for other abducted
children abroad, not as an opportunity to reengage in or
intensify long-term diplomatic efforts.
Given the Goldman example and the authorities granted under
this law, I and thousands of other seeking parents rejoiced at
the hope that enforcement of the Goldman Act would result in
the immediate return of our illegally detained and abducted
children.
Sadly, today, you can stare but I stare at times--we had a
photo of my son here when he was 5--thank you so much. Yes. So
when I stare at my 5-year-old son, Eslam, and wonder--I wonder
how I could look him in the eye when last we embraced which was
2 years and 15 days ago and explain that the Government of the
United States will enact a law granting authority to publicly
condemn Tunisia for failing to uphold its new Constitution and
rule of law, to delay or cancel any of the two official visits
that Tunisian leadership has enjoyed at the White House since
your abduction or to withdraw, limit or suspend any of the
billions of security and development assistance paid for in
U.S. tax dollars to the Tunisian Government, but that no one
will act upon it.
I wonder if any of us could tell our children with a
straight face that we are fully aware of the psychological,
emotional and maybe even physical abuse that they are likely to
incur as a result of being parentally abducted but that
politics and diplomacy take precedence.
I wonder how Stan Hunkovic, father of Gabriel and Anastasia
who were abducted to Trinidad and Tobago by their mother in
2010, could look his children in the eye when last the embraced
4 years, 7 months and 16 days ago and explain that the United
States could take strong immediate action that could secure
their return home but simply won't.
Chairman Smith, esteemed members of the subcommittee and
guests, what I need, what Eslam needs, what Gabriel and
Anastasia need, what all of our children kidnapped abroad need
is every representative of our Government to take every
opportunity as it arises to put our children first.
We need every 202(d) action authorized by the Goldman Act,
most specifically actions three through eight, to be enforced
at every opportunity whether within a committee of Congress,
through the Federal budget with respect to foreign aid
distributions to countries cited as persistently failing to
return abducted children home, through a policy of consistent
issuance of extradition warrants in all IPCA cases and
persistent pursuit of their enforcement or by the refusal of
official state visits and the suspension or withholding of
development security or any other form of foreign assistance.
The opportunities to secure our children's immediate return
to their families in the United States are limitless. We and
our abducted children care not from where within our Government
action is initiated.
We care only about the result and our children's return
home. What I need from my Government to secure Eslam's return
home is the immediate and uninhibited enforcement of 202(d)
actions three through seven with respect to Tunisia,
specifically a public condemnation and the suspension of all
foreign aid until Eslam is returned to our family in the United
States.
I end my testimony with a reiteration of my statements
before this subcommittee 1 year ago. To be clear, the Goldman
Act as it is written is a fair and powerful law that includes
strong remedies which, if applied, will result in the return of
our illegally detained abducted children abroad.
It is my firm belief that with the application of any of
202(d) actions four through seven, Eslam Chebbi and Gabriel and
Anastasia Hunkovic will be returned to their homes in the U.S.
with immediacy. Diplomacy and politics have a place and
purpose.
But when a country persistently fails to return illegally
abducted American children home swift and immediate action must
be taken by all. As Secretary Kerry proclaimed, there can be no
safe haven for abductors and all of the tools available must be
used to help resolve cases of IPCA.
Thank you for your time and consideration and for the honor
of testifying before you today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Barbirou follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Ms. Barbirou, thank you very much for your
testimony. Like the others that preceded you, it is moving.
Welcome back. But I wish you weren't here, frankly, except
perhaps talking about a success which we've had in very, very
few instances. So thank you again for your very candid and
strong recommendations as well.
Let me just say, and I'll throw it out for any comments you
might want to make, a few things. Ms. Abbi, you talked about
why is the United States so powerless. I have asked myself that
question.
I authored the Goldman Act. It took 5 years to get passed.
Ran into all kinds obstacles, executive branch as well as
legislative branch, which to this day I find discouraging but
motivating simultaneously because you can't accept no for an
answer in this job.
You talked, Dr. Brann, about how Brazil has not responded
to demarches. Last year's report--because there is an action
report as to what 90 days after the issuance of the report that
has been now sent to Congress, which would take us to early
October 90 days or through any time between that 90-day period
actions by the executive branch can be promulgated.
And frankly, last year I was gravely disappointed in both
the report and the actions. I said so. I wasn't the only one
that said so very clearly. You know, a demarche is a first step
but a very mild one. You then need the Goldman Act to make
demarches in the past. The other sanctions that are prescribed
in this, actions by the Secretary of State, are very real and
powerful if they're used. If they're not used, as I said to Ms.
Christensen, they become toothless.
The countries quickly look at that and say oh, that's just
something that's on a shelf somewhere--they don't mean it--it's
just an exercise in duplication or the articulation of
something that they have no intent of enforcing.
So I think this year will be the test because the report
has been improved. Not there yet, frankly, but it is improved.
I wondered and I asked Ms. Christensen earlier, you might have
noted, about these resolved cases. We have no idea what that's
all about.
There's no breakout as to was it aging out, what was the
cause of these cases dropped off. That's not a real resolution.
Return of child is the resolution that we are indeed looking
for even though there are some other criteria prescribed in the
law for what that means.
I thought, Mr. Cook, you made so many very--all of you
did--so many wonderful recommendations and observations and the
idea of summary of successful tactics, for example, when the
cauldron of having your child or children abducted is
compounded by what do we do next, well, there is a series of
best practices, effective strategies and the more that is
shared the better and certainly the parents should be first to
get that. I thought that, among many other ideas that you made,
were excellent.
And then Ms. Barbirou, the idea of full force--full force
of Goldman, full force. These sanctions are very real and when
they start getting meted out I absolutely guarantee countries
will take notice if they are, again, enforced to the least
extent possible, as you just testified. That means ``hit me
again--it doesn't hurt.'' The countries will not take us
seriously and therefore they will not take your legitimate
concerns and return of your children seriously.
So it's great when you're dealing with an interlocutor or a
country that really cares and many of the central authorities
do, I have found. But when it gets to another level of
government and even when you go to court, one of the biggest
Achilles' heel in all of this, as you all have noted, is the
enforcement and as noted by the report. You know, Japan's
enforcement is tragically flawed. It just doesn't work. I
remember when David Goldman got his son back.
We were in the consulate in Rio de Janeiro and it was a
terrible circus that was carried on by the other parties,
walking him through the streets, and I was standing right next
to him when he burst out in tears and said, ``Look what they're
doing to my son,'' similar what was said earlier about, you
know, the scenario of breaking down the door or something. Very
benign methodology can be employed to help bring this all about
in a way that does not further traumatize a child or children.
Any comments you might want to make? I plan on having
another hearing--hearings, and I'm never going to stop as long
as God gives me breath, but hearings on implementation of this.
I do hope and I thank our friends from the State Department
for staying here and hearing all of you. That is wonderful. I
appreciate that. I know you know how important it is that you
hear these cases and take it to heart.
But Japan needs to really be on the list. I don't know how
they didn't qualify. Everything but yet a pattern of
noncompliance. It's just inexplicable, in all candor.
But so the idea of sanctions, if any of you want to weigh
in on that. You already did, Ms. Barbirou. If you want to do it
again that would be appreciated. Using all the tools prescribed
by Goldman, and then the issue that I asked repeatedly, Ms.
Christensen--I've been asking it. But even before the Goldman
Act was enacted and that is the importance of MOUs. If they're
entered into in good faith and robustly carried out, especially
by our side, they'll work. Any treaty--any cooperative
agreement only works if at least one side is pushing hard. The
other side will take note, particularly when there's an array
of sanctions hanging over them like a sword of Damocles.
So these MOUs are essential, and when I was in Japan, for
example, I talked to our Embassy people there. They said the
left-behind parents--the Hague folks are, now we know, are
having trouble who are under the rubric of the Hague but those
before the 40-odd cases--I mentioned a few before--I just can't
even begin to fathom the sorrow and pain you all experienced.
So I think the MOUs--because we don't want deja vu
happening all over again, to quote Yogi Berra, where India then
agrees to the Hague and then it may be just as ineffectively
implemented as Japan is doing right now, again, with
enforcement being the weakest link and then all those who are
grandfathered out from day of ratification. There has to be a
simultaneous pursuit of that and whoever the next President is
I can guarantee I will be at their door--I won't be the only
one--saying that we got to make Goldman work.
MOUs need to be promulgated and sanction. If you don't
sanction, if you're acting or have people hearing your pleas
that are truly people--men and women of good will maybe you'll
get somewhere. But nothing sharp. It's all of our civil rights
laws always had the catch of Federal funds being proscribed
whether it was women in sports, the Title IX, the Title VII--
all these civil rights laws didn't count on good will, not one
of them.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which I also wrote,
has strong, strong implementation factors to it in terms of not
just naming and shaming. It is naming, calling out, and then
sanctioning if the country is not doing what they ought to be
doing.
So if you want to make any final comments. All of your
statements, because I know some of you, I've noticed, jumped
through--will be made a part of the record in their totality.
I'm planning, hopefully, even if we're not in session,
writing a provision for it. October 9th would be the date, 90
days later pursuant to Goldman, that action has to be taken.
Not later than is the way the law reads, but anytime before
that. September 15th, whatever day of the choosing, Secretary
of State Kerry, the administration, can say this is what we're
doing to Brazil, this is what we're going to impose on India.
Japan--again, they have not made this naming and I find that
appalling. Tunisia, which is also on the list and the other
countries as well. So it's time to say we've got tools--we're
going to use them. So if you want to make any comments on that
please do.
Mr. Cook. I was going to say, Representative Smith--
Chairman Smith, the parts I didn't elaborate too much in my
statement but in the written testimony a larger thing, I guess
I would say, because I've been working with Japan for 30 years
and I don't claim to know the Japanese mind or culture. But
what I do know is--or what I've experienced, I should say, is
that any ambiguity is used to their greatest advantage.
Any sort of ability to vacillate is used to their greatest
advantage, and so I have had some people tell me that diplomacy
has worked. Just in the same measure I will say that we have
been able to cut great caverns in the Earth via the glacier, so
the glacier works. But there are other more effective means of
accomplishing what we want to accomplish and the one thing--one
thing I know very well about the Japanese, just as we alluded
to other, as in India, there have to be consequences--absolute
firm consequences.
One of the things I just threw out there, and I have no
idea if it's at all--and I wrote in my written testimony I have
no idea if it's even doable is dictating, so to speak, to Japan
and say part of your implementation as United States and stay
on our good side is that--I can't remember, recite it from
memory now--but a Hague case to a first decision will not take
any more than 10 weeks. In the event it takes more than 10
weeks, the--I'm trying to remember--the left-behind parent will
be reimbursed 100 percent of all expenses and costs to that
point and going forward until there's an ultimate conclusion.
Second, in the event that there's a favorable--and there's
a order of return, then the taking parent has 30 days to return
the child. In the event that that 30 days lapses then the 30-
day onus goes upon Japan.
In the event that that lapses--and this is the part where
it gets maybe way beyond what we can do--that--so after the
country, Japan, basically violates what they said they were
going to do by signing the Hague then they're giving implicit
consent for the U.S. to go in and complete the enforcement by
any means, methods, or personnel possible and they have the
task--then also the country Japan would hold harmless on behalf
of their citizen any sort of legal legislation, violations of
laws, norms or whatever that they may throw upon the taking
parent--or the left-behind parent--that sort of stuff. And just
have it be absolutely this is it. I mean, this is how it rolls
out. In the event you don't do this, this is what happens. In
the event you don't do this, this is what happens.
And another larger point, because I'd like to divest a lot
of the discretion for enforcement from the Department of State
and give them a narrower field in which to play and say these
are--as the Department of State you're the face of us around
the world. It would be great for you to go and explain to the
world this is how we run things, this is how we are going to do
it rather than saying what do you think about our policies.
Then they're just toothless and they have no point
because--and I'll say specifically with Japan you never give
them an opportunity to negotiate anything because they will
take every opportunity to gain ground and then that is ground
acceded and that's the point from which our negotiations start
again anew.
There is no--and it sounds strict to say this--they are
quite often incapable of negotiating in good will. There always
has to be the stick, so to speak. And so that's my point on
that.
Ms. Barbirou. Thank you for the opportunity to respond
again. I did just want to note, you mentioned there are people
who care in these other governments in these other nations.
It is not that it is full of people who are uncaring and in
fact in this room is a member of the Tunisian Embassy who is a
very caring and committed individual to the law and the rule of
law whom I believe would like to see our case resolved. So to
him and to other members of the Tunisian Government who are
attempting to act in good faith I appreciate that.
But that does not dispel the fact that the government
itself has ultimate authority over the enforcement of the law
in all of these countries. And so the recommendations of the
Goldman Act or the actions within the Goldman Act are not
personal and they are absolutely necessary, as you stated, for
the actual enforcement of the return of our children, which is
the whole goal and purpose.
And so I stand by that but also thank all of those who do
care and who are acting in their best efforts to ensure that
there is resolution to our case.
In terms of what Mr. Cook just said, it's interesting. We
had similar thoughts. And so in my recommendations, in my
written testimony I provided a copy of drafted legislation that
I wrote that offers a means of providing punitive damages to
parents that are paid for by the countries that are found to
have a persistent--to have a pattern of noncompliance in
persistently failing to return American children.
There is that second definition of what noncompliance
means, and when a country is persistently failing, clearly,
even if verbally they are saying we are going to try and we are
doing our best, then by action they are actually outrightly
refusing.
And so if our children are illegally abducted in those
lands then they are taking on the onus and responsibility of
the parent who has illegally kidnapped them there. And when
parents are devastated financially in this country, doing
anything and everything that they can, wielding legal fees and
translation fees and sometimes going into bankruptcy, doing
travel exchanges, all of those things at our own cost, it's not
fair.
And I think at some point I am hopeful that we see
additional legislation that provides an opportunity for a pot
to be made that benefits the parents in a way that we are not
so financially devastated by this crime.
I also just want to ask that, again, as I stated last year
and stated also in my testimony that one of the recommendations
I have is that the act contain an explicit requirement of
accountability for the total existing cases of IPCA by a
country including newly reported cases and the total number of
children involved in each case represented in future compliance
reports under the act.
I know that that may seem like a minimal thing. This
report, as far as I could see, says there is more than 600
children who were abducted abroad. That is not a solid number
and in this country where we have no accountability to the
total number of children who are impacted by this crime it is
vitally important that we have at least a basis of
understanding of how many children we're talking about here
because when the net widens then the opportunities for others
to get involved for prevention and return widens as well.
I have other recommendations I hope that you'll review and
I thank you so much.
Ms. Abbi. I kind of missed covering that in my testimony
before. I wanted to bring your attention to the Ministry of
Women and Child Development's draft that was recently posted on
June 22, 2016, and that draft bill is on its Web site and I
have linked it to my testimony. And that would implement Hague
abduction convention accession to Hague Convention in India.
While I personally welcome this development, I'm really
concerned given the MWCD's dual missions and track record which
has been kind of mixing up IPCA, which is a child's right
issue, with women's issue in India.
For the progress on IPCA in India will really require clear
and unwavering commitment from the Government of India
including MWCD to ensure all IPCA cases are treated fairly
regardless of the abducting parent's gender, nationality, and
ethnicity in a timely manner.
That draft is linked to my testimony, but one gap I wanted
to bring to your attention is its lack of applicability to pre-
Hague cases, and this not only concerns me but also the left-
behind parents who have pending cases in India.
So I really urge both nations to ensure that victims of
IPCA in India whose cases are pending must be resolved on an
urgent basis with the bilateral framework. I know we have
talked about it before with Department of State, but that
really has to be implemented prior to India's ratification to
Hague abduction because we don't want to be in a situation
where they would accede to Hague Convention but we are still
high and dry here, you know, hanging between hope and despair
and it's mostly despair most of the time.
So I really just wanted to call out. Thank you so much.
Dr. Brann. And I have one recommendation. I'll be brief.
Regarding Brazil, there is a simple way to change the
Government of Brazil's approach to this issue. Brazil benefits
from the Generalized System of Preferences program that
provides nonreciprocal duty-free tariff treatment to certain
products imported from certain countries.
Brazil is the third largest beneficiary under the program
with its duty-free imports at $2.3 billion annually.
Interestingly, 7 percent of all--that's 7 percent of all
imports and that authorization expires next year.
So the idea that we don't have any leverage in the near
term is ludicrous. We have this ability and in fact we actually
have no obligation to provide this duty-free treatment of
Brazilian goods.
If Nico and the other abducted American children aren't
brought home then we should just simply revoke Brazil's
benefits under this program.
Facing a loss of more than $2 billion annually, which is a
free benefit we just give away, I'd be shocked if the
Government of Brazil doesn't find a way to fix its laws so that
courts here decide convention cases in 6 weeks or less.
Now, when the Government of Brazil determines a child was
wrongly abducted and they don't comply with that within the
timeframe, those are issues that are perpetuated at each level
of the court above, right.
So it's the first level, then the second level and the
third level and the fourth level. One of the other things we
could ask the Brazilian courts to do is at each level honor the
6-week commitment, meaning if the first level doesn't make that
decision within 6 weeks we can at the very least ask that the
next level try to expedite it and honor that 6-week commitment
and if they don't then we continue to offer alternative
solutions such as the one that I just offered. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Just for the record, I would like to ask
unanimous consent that Elijah Jackson's letter regarding the
abduction of his child to Namibia be made a part of the record
and a letter from Congressman Jim McDermott regarding the case
of Jeffrey Morehouse whose son was abducted to Japan be also
made a part of the record. Without objection, so ordered.
I just want to thank you so much. As I said, we will have a
next hearing in September or October. Hopefully the
administration will move robustly on the sanctions part, the
second shoe that now drops, and we will stay tuned.
But we will have a hearing to talk about that, to see what
it is that they are doing. I plan on initiating a letter to the
Secretary of State, taking many of your comments today.
I thought the idea of saying enforced to the least extent
possible was a very strong sense of we want more. You deserve
more and the law gives you far more than that has been deployed
1\1/2\ years or so to date.
So this is a great opportunity to make this Goldman Act
work and so we'll initiate a letter to the Secretary. I'm sure
both sides of the aisle members will want this signed, saying
come on, Mr. Secretary, now is the time--let's do it. And so
that'll be something as soon as we get back. Obviously,
everybody is out to their planes now because we just ended
session for 6 weeks.
But--well, longer than that, but looking forward to that
next hearing and we do look forward, I do, and hope that the
administration will really be very strong because I think now
is the time to draw that line in the sand that says we're not
kidding.
Hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:41 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]