Foreign Affairs: Changes to Germany's Implementation of the Hague
Child Abduction Convention (10-APR-01, GAO-01-423).
Over the past several years, the United States has been critical
of Germany's handling of international parental child abduction
cases that have been filed by U.S. parents. Both the executive
and legislative branches of the U.S. government have criticized
Germany for not fully and consistently following the criteria and
procedures established under the 1980 Hague Convention on the
Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which governs
such cases. The primary criticisms include the inappropriate use
by German courts of certain provisions of the Hague Convention to
justify retaining abducted children in Germany, the length of
time it has taken to adjudicate cases, and the failure to enforce
left-behind parents' visitation rights. GAO examined the actions
that Germany has taken or plans to take to reform its handling of
international parental child abduction cases and how these
actions may affect U.S. cases. GAO found that German authorities
have pledged their commitment to take steps to improve the
handling of Hague Convention cases and Germany has taken action
to address two of the three primary criticisms. Germany has
established a task force to monitor German reforms and active
cases, initiated efforts to build expertise among judges deciding
Hague Convention cases, and changed its processes to accelerate
case handling. Despite these reforms, Germany has not acted to
improve enforcement of visitation rights granted by German
courts. The German courts' reluctance to enforce visitation
orders is hampering Germany's efforts to improve its handling of
Hague Convention cases.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-01-423
ACCNO: A00797
TITLE: Foreign Affairs: Changes to Germany's Implementation of
the Hague Child Abduction Convention
DATE: 04/10/2001
SUBJECT: Child custody
Crimes or offenses
Foreign governments
International cooperation
International law
Germany
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Testimony. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-423
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U. S. Senate
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
April 2001 FOREIGN AFFAIRS Changes to Germany's Implementation of the Hague
Child Abduction Convention
GAO- 01- 423
Page i GAO- 01- 423 Parental Child Abduction Letter 1
Appendix I Consular Assistance to Left- Behind Parents 11
Appendix II Scope and Methodology 13
Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 14
Tables
Table 1: German Initiatives to Improve Handling of Hague Convention Cases 4
Table 2: Consular Assistance to Left- Behind Parents (FY 1999- 2000) 12
Contents
Page 1 GAO- 01- 423 Parental Child Abduction
April 10, 2001 The Honorable Jesse A. Helms Chairman, Committee on Foreign
Relations United States Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman: Over the past several years, the United States has been
critical of Germany's handling of international parental child abduction
cases that have been filed by U. S. parents. 1 Both the executive and
legislative branches of the U. S. government have criticized Germany for not
fully and consistently following the criteria and procedures established
under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction, 2 which governs such cases. The primary criticisms include the
inappropriate use by German courts of certain provisions of the Hague
Convention to justify retaining an abducted child in Germany, the length of
time it has taken to adjudicate cases, and the failure to enforce left-
behind parents' visitation rights. In September 2000, in response to your
concerns about the rights of left- behind parents, we reported on the status
and outcome of cases that U. S. parents have filed with Germany. 3 This
second report identifies actions that Germany has taken or plans it has
under way to reform its handling of international parental child abduction
cases and how these actions may affect U. S. cases. We also obtained
information about what State Department officers stationed in Germany are
doing to assist left- behind parents. This information is contained in
appendix I.
To identify German actions and plans and how they may affect U. S. cases, we
met with German government officials, judges, and lawyers in seven cities in
Germany during November 2000. We also interviewed Department of State
officials in headquarters and in Germany. In addition, we reviewed the
status and outcome of the 43 U. S. cases that had been opened after German
authorities began changing their handling of Hague Convention
1 International parental child abduction occurs when a parent removes a
child from the United States or retains a child outside the United States,
with the intent to obstruct the parental rights (including visitation
rights) of the left- behind parent. 18 U. S. C. 1204.
2 29 ILM 1501 (1980). 3 Foreign Affairs: Status of U. S. Parental Child
Abductions to Germany, Sweden, and Austria (GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 226BR, Sept. 8,
2000).
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO- 01- 423 Parental Child Abduction
cases in July 1999. More details about our scope and methodology can be
found in appendix II.
In response to U. S. and other countries' concerns, German authorities have
pledged their commitment to take steps to improve the handling of Hague
Convention cases, and Germany has taken actions to address two of the three
primary criticisms. Germany has established a task force to monitor German
reforms and active cases, initiated efforts to build expertise among judges
deciding Hague Convention cases, and changed its processes to accelerate
case handling. Our analysis of information obtained in Germany and case data
in Washington, D. C., indicates that changes are under way that may
positively affect case handling. However, because many of these reforms are
recent, we believe it will take time for case outcomes to fully reflect
their effect. Despite these reforms, Germany has not acted to improve
enforcement of visitation rights granted by German courts. The German
courts' reluctance to enforce visitation orders is hampering Germany's
efforts to improve its handling of Hague Convention cases.
The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction governs how international parental child abduction disputes are
adjudicated. It requires that party states identify a lead government agency
(called a “central authority”) to serve as a central point of
contact and to initiate or facilitate judicial or administrative
proceedings. The State Department's Office of Children's Issues, 4 Bureau of
Consular Affairs, is the central authority for the United States. Germany
has identified the Federal Prosecutor General 5 as its central authority.
The United States and other countries, especially France and the United
Kingdom, have expressed concerns about German authorities' handling of Hague
Convention cases. In May 1999, State reported to Congress that the German
administrative and judicial processing of abduction cases took 18 months or
longer, a period State considered unacceptable. 6 In October
4 State Department's Office of Children's Issues formulates, develops, and
coordinates policies and programs on international parental child
abductions. 5 The German Federal Prosecutor General's office has no
counterpart in the United States.
6 Report on Compliance With the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction (Washington, D. C.: Department of State, May
1999). Results in Brief
Background
Page 3 GAO- 01- 423 Parental Child Abduction
2000, State further reported that the systemic failure of German courts to
enforce contempt 7 sanctions allowed abducting parents to resist enforcement
of visitation orders indefinitely. 8 In addition, a May 2000 congressional
resolution cited Germany, along with other countries, for not meeting their
commitments under the Hague Convention. 9 Also, media in both the United
States and Germany have actively reported on this issue, focusing on a
number of high- profile, controversial cases. We reported that between
January 1, 1995, and May 15, 2000, there were 257 cases where U. S. parents
sought the return of, or visitation with, their children in Germany.
According to the State Department, there were 17 cases pending German
judicial action as of March 1, 2001.
In June 2000, for the first time since both countries signed (and became
states party to) the Hague Convention, discussion of specific cases was
elevated to the presidential level. At that time, President Clinton and
Chancellor Schroeder, the German head of Government, met in Berlin and,
according to the State Department, discussed a number of high- profile
abduction cases among other bilateral issues. Their meeting resulted in the
establishment of a U. S.- German working group on international parental
child abductions. The working group met on June 27, July 24 and 25,
September 25 and 26, 2000, and January 8 and 9, 2001, to discuss the
concerns of each country and to seek solutions.
Since July 1999, Germany has taken steps designed to improve its handling of
parental child abduction cases under the 1980 Hague Convention. The most
significant actions are summarized in table 1. Our analysis of information
obtained in Germany and case data in Washington, D. C., indicates that these
changes may have a positive effect on current and future cases. Because most
German actions are very recent, however, it will take time for case outcomes
to fully reflect their effect. These changes may not affect cases already
decided by German courts. Although the task force is working to find
acceptable solutions on some closed cases, German authorities said they will
not revisit prior court rulings. State
7 Contempt is the failure to obey a court order issued for another party's
benefit. 8 Report on Compliance With the Hague Convention on the Civil
Aspects of International Child Abduction (Washington, D. C.: Department of
State, Oct. 2000).
9 H. Con. Res. 293. Sweden and Austria were also cited in this resolution.
German Initiatives to
Improve Handling of Hague Convention Cases
Page 4 GAO- 01- 423 Parental Child Abduction
Department officials accepted this position even though they disagreed with
some past decisions.
Table 1: German Initiatives to Improve Handling of Hague Convention Cases
Goal Action Status
Facilitate the resolution of difficult cases and monitor reforms.
Establish 5- member task force within the Ministry of Justice.
Created in October 2000 and funded through September 2003. Enhance expertise
among German judges on Hague Convention provisions and cases.
Reduce the number of courts and judges that hear Hague Convention cases.
Implement judicial training programs sponsored by the Ministry of Justice
nationwide.
Effective July 1999, the number of courts authorized to hear Hague
Convention cases was reduced from 600 to 24.
Courts in Munich and Dusseldorf reduced to two the number of judges that
adjudicate Hague Convention cases in November 2000.
Training seminars conducted in January and February 2001 for 48 family court
judges representing 22 of the 24 German family courts. Additional training
is scheduled for late 2001.
Accelerate case decisions. Reengineer its system for processing cases and
scheduling hearings.
Central Authority implemented reforms in October 2000. Source: GAO synthesis
of information provided by German officials.
Germany established a special task force in October 2000 to lead German
efforts to improve its handling of Hague Convention cases. The task force
has five members, including a family court judge, a family law specialist,
and two senior- level Ministry of Justice officials who joined the task
force for bilateral discussions on parental child abduction cases with the
United States. Based on our discussions with members of the task force, they
appear to understand Germany's obligations under the Hague Convention and
the areas in which German reforms may be needed. The task force has been
funded for 3 years, until September 2003. The task force director explained
that improvements in Germany's handling of these cases should increase over
the life of the task force and that, as a result, there should be no need to
extend the task force beyond that time. The task force has two primary
responsibilities: assisting in the resolution of difficult cases and
facilitating and monitoring reforms in German institutions.
The task force's influence over difficult cases is limited because German
courts, which enjoy substantial independence under Germany's constitution,
make the final decisions on abduction cases. Nevertheless, the director said
that there were a number of actions that the task force planned to take to
help facilitate consistent case outcomes. For example, the task force plans
to provide information to the German youth authority Facilitating the
Resolution
of Difficult Cases and Monitoring Reforms
Page 5 GAO- 01- 423 Parental Child Abduction
on Hague Convention provisions and to left- behind parents and their lawyers
regarding German legal processes and institutions. The task force director
indicated that it also plans to promote out- of- court, nonjudicial
mediation, especially for long- standing, difficult cases, including cases
in which a court has ruled against a left- behind parent. Because the German
task force had been active for only a few months without having concluded
any of its initiatives, we could not determine whether it could affect the
outcome of U. S. cases. As of March 1, 2001, the task force told us that
they were actively involved with six high- profile cases already decided by
German courts.
Regarding the reform process, the task force is monitoring court proceedings
and decisions and collecting data on observations by other governments and
left- behind parents regarding how German authorities are handling these
cases. Using this information, the task force will determine whether and to
what extent it needs to get involved to facilitate the resolution of
specific cases or encourage systemic change. The task force also serves as a
facilitator for the German reforms discussed below.
According to the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Secretariat, which monitors
treaties on private international law, a well- trained and experienced
judiciary is key to effectively implementing the Hague Convention. German
government officials and judges told us that lack of judicial familiarity
with the application of Hague Convention provisions has been a major problem
affecting case decisions. German judges told us that a judge might not be
familiar with the Hague Convention because he or she may not have previously
presided over a Convention case.
The Hague Convention requires that, barring extreme circumstances, children
be returned to their country of habitual residence. Once returned, a court
in that country will decide custody. However, German officials and lawyers
indicated that because of limited experience with Hague Convention
requirements, some German judges may view their role differently. In these
cases, German judges may believe that they are expected to decide the
child's custody, applying German family law, rather than applying Hague
Convention provisions. This could result in a judge ruling in favor of the
abducting parent and denying return. To enhance Hague Convention expertise,
German authorities have limited the number of courts and judges hearing such
cases and have begun training them on the Hague Convention provisions.
Enhancing Hague
Convention Expertise Among German Judges
Page 6 GAO- 01- 423 Parental Child Abduction
To promote judicial expertise in handling Hague Convention cases, the German
parliament enacted legislation in July 1999, limiting the number of courts
with jurisdiction to hear Hague Convention cases from 600 to 24. This
resulted in a reduction in the number of judges with jurisdiction to hear
such cases from approximately 2,000 to 200 judges. This legislative
initiative, supported by the United States, was largely in response to
criticism and pressure from France and the United Kingdom, two Hague
Convention party states with long- standing concerns about German courts'
decisions on Hague Convention cases.
In September 2000, in addition to the nationwide reductions, the German
State Secretary encouraged further reductions in the number of judges
hearing Hague Convention cases. According to a judge with the task force,
the Ministry of Justice cannot order a reduction; it can only be reached and
made effective by the judges themselves. Family courts in Munich and
Dusseldorf have decided to reduce the number of judges hearing such cases to
two- a primary and secondary judge. Other family courts in Germany have
expressed interest in following the Munich and Dusseldorf courts but have
not yet acted.
According to German lawyers handling Hague Convention cases, the
concentration of Hague cases among fewer judges should improve case
handling. For example, they said that the reduction in the number of judges
hearing cases should result in fewer applications of the Article 13b
exception to the Hague Convention. Under this exception, a party state can
deny the return of a child if the return, in the court's opinion, would pose
a grave risk to the child's mental or physical well- being. According to
officials from the Hague Secretariat and the U. S. and German governments,
this exception should be narrowly applied and not liberally used as a
vehicle for denying a child's return. However, according to the State
Department, some German judges have interpreted the exception too liberally
and made “unconscionably broad” use of the Hague Convention
exception in a number of cases. The German task force acknowledged that
German judges used this exception too liberally in some past cases.
In our September 2000 report on the status of U. S. parental child
abductions to Germany, we reported that, for the 172 closed cases where the
child was not returned to the United States, German courts used the Article
13b exception 14 times (or 8 percent). Since September, German courts under
the new 24- court system used the Article 13b exception once. That is, for
cases handled under the new court structure, German courts used the Article
13b exception once in 30 (3 percent) cases, compared with 14 instances in
172 (8 percent) decided cases under the old structure. Limiting the Number
of Courts
and Judges That Adjudicate Hague Convention Cases
Page 7 GAO- 01- 423 Parental Child Abduction
To further familiarize judges with Hague Convention standards and
procedures, the Ministry of Justice coordinated two 3- day training
conferences in January and February 2001. 10 The training conferences were
an effort to enhance common knowledge and expertise about the goals of the
Hague Convention among German judges with jurisdiction over these cases.
These conferences focused on the (1) creation and goals of the Hague
Convention, (2) legal jurisdiction and provisions under the Convention, and
(3) return and access rights and their enforcement under the Convention.
Ministry of Justice officials told us that their role was limited to
facilitating and coordinating the conferences while knowledgeable and
experienced judges and lawyers conducted conference sessions for
participating judges. 11
In addition, Germany, the United States, and the Hague Secretariat have
discussed plans to convene a conference among a number of Hague Convention
party states in late 2001 to promote consistency in Convention
interpretation and foster closer relationships. This conference would cover
such topics as the intent of the Hague Convention, restricted use of
Convention exception provisions, and enforcement of return and access
decisions.
According to the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Secretariat, prompt access to
the courts is a key factor to the effective implementation of the Hague
Convention. The longer a child remains in his environment, and bonds with
the abducting parent, the less willing a court may be to order the child's
return. In its May 1999 report, State cited Germany for lengthy case
processing. We reported in September 2000 that German authorities took a
median of 288 days to process Hague Convention abduction and access cases.
Although Germany has not established a specific time limit for case
adjudication, the German task force acknowledged that German courts have
taken too long to adjudicate abduction cases in the past.
10 The January training conference was conducted in Recklinghausen, Germany,
for 25 family court judges, and the February conference was conducted in Bad
Nauheim, Germany, for 23 family court judges.
11 The U. S. embassy has proposed to support German judicial training by
sponsoring child custody seminars for German family judges. These seminars
would consist of three 1- day events throughout Germany and feature U. S.
and German speakers on Hague Convention implementation issues. Through
State's International Visitor Program, the U. S. embassy plans to sponsor
visits in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 by German judges to the United States
to meet with their U. S. counterparts. Implementing Judicial Training
Programs Nationwide Accelerating Case Decisions Through Reengineered Case
Application Filing Procedures and Court Notification
Page 8 GAO- 01- 423 Parental Child Abduction
Officials from the central authority in Bonn told us that they have changed
their administrative procedures to expedite case application filing and
court notification. In October 2000, the central authority established a
policy to fully process and forward applications to the competent court
within 7 days of receipt of a complete application. Before October 2000, the
central authority took about 30 days. Only one of the cases we reviewed was
opened after October 2000, when the new administrative procedures were put
in place. This case was originally sent to the German central authority,
which promptly transferred the case to French authorities upon learning from
the U. S. left- behind parent that the abducting parent had fled to France.
In addition to lengthy administrative procedures, German Ministry of Justice
officials conceded that German proceedings can be too lengthy, citing some
judges' desire to hear the child's opinion and to request lengthy
psychological reports from German youth authorities. Obtaining a child's
testimony and youth reports are standard practices for deciding domestic
custody cases. Collecting and analyzing all of this evidence before making a
decision takes considerable time. According to one Ministry official, judges
will depend less on psychological reports, which are geared more for
domestic child custody cases, as they become more knowledgeable of Hague
Convention procedures and requirements, which do not require such evidence.
According to U. S. and German central authority officials, Hague Convention
cases in Germany are being processed more expeditiously than before. Of the
43 U. S. cases opened since July 1999, when the number of courts and judges
was reduced, 30 were closed by January 31, 2001. The median duration of
cases was 147 days. For cases closed from January 1, 1995, through June 30,
1999, the median duration case was 304 days.
Despite international criticism, some German courts are still reluctant to
enforce court- ordered visitation rights of left- behind parents. German
Ministry of Justice officials conceded that enforcement remains a problem
and acknowledged that their ministry needs to work with the courts to change
existing practices. The State Department indicated that it is seeking
comprehensive information about German judicial enforcement practices and
exploring options to encourage reforms. State officials told us that failure
to enforce court- ordered visitation undermines the Hague Convention. We
believe that, if this problem persists, the impact of the reforms being
implemented could be undermined. German Courts
Reluctant to Enforce Visitation Orders
Page 9 GAO- 01- 423 Parental Child Abduction
In its October 6, 2000, compliance report to Congress, the State Department
reported that German courts systematically fail to enforce court- ordered
visitation, thus allowing abducting parents to resist enforcement of orders
indefinitely. We identified two cases where leftbehind parents in the United
States were seeking the enforcement of their German court- ordered
visitation rights. In both cases, German judges failed to enforce the orders
when the abducting parent refused to cooperate. According to German judges,
domestic law does not permit the use of physical force 12 to enforce
visitation orders. In addition, they told us that they are reluctant to
employ existing sanctions because they fear that such actions would have a
detrimental affect on the child. For example, incarcerating an abducting
parent, which is one of the enforcement tools available to German judges,
will separate the child from the parent. According to German judges, this
could impact the child psychologically.
State officials are seeking detailed information about Germany's judicial
enforcement mechanisms and exploring ways to encourage German courts to
change existing practices. They indicated that they have raised this issue
at each of the working group meetings since June 2000. Although enforcement
of visitation orders was not on the agenda for Secretary of State Colin
Powell's February 20, 2001, meeting in the United States with Germany's
Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, the topic was discussed during a U. S.-
German bilateral meeting in the Netherlands on March 29, 2001. State
indicated that it plans to continue raising the issue at all future meetings
with German officials on the task force and at the central authority. State
also plans to reserve positions in the International Visitor Program for
German judges to discuss enforcement of visitation orders, among other
issues. According to State, although the United States can attempt to
influence German actions, only German authorities can make the decision to
act.
Germany's initiatives to enhance judicial expertise and accelerate case
processing are steps that have potential to (1) positively affect German
application of the provisions of the Hague Convention and (2) reduce the
time taken to adjudicate cases. Because the reforms are recent, there are
only a limited number of cases to demonstrate the actual effect of the
initiatives. Germany has not acted, however, to improve its enforcement of
visitation orders. This is a key concern of the State Department. Moreover,
12 Such force would include physically separating a child from the abducting
parent. Conclusions
Page 10 GAO- 01- 423 Parental Child Abduction
we believe that the failure to address the German courts' reluctance to
enforce visitation orders could undermine Germany's efforts to improve its
handling of Hague Convention cases.
We obtained oral comments on a draft of this report from the Department of
State's Office of Children's Issues, Bureau of Consular Affairs, which
agreed with the report's conclusion and provided us with technical comments
that we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Colin L. Powell, the
Secretary of State, and interested congressional committees. We will make
copies available to others upon request.
Please contact me on (202) 512- 4128 if you or your staff have any questions
about this report. Another GAO contact and staff acknowledgments are listed
in appendix III.
Sincerely yours, Jess T. Ford, Director International Affairs and Trade
Agency Comments
and Our Response
Appendix I: Consular Assistance to LeftBehind Parents
Page 11 GAO- 01- 423 Parental Child Abduction
The State Department's consulate offices can provide a variety of incountry
assistance to left- behind parents involved in child custody conflicts. The
State Department's Office of Children's Issues 1 in Washington, D. C., can
request consular officers to locate and report on the child's welfare,
conduct home visits, and assist in obtaining case status information. In
addition, the U. S. embassy and consulate offices can provide left- behind
parents with information on attorneys who handle Hague Convention cases and
can contact or refer a left- behind parent to German agencies that can
provide assistance.
According to U. S. consular officials in Germany, a common request from
left- behind parents is to obtain the telephone number where the child can
be reached. In more complicated cases where a left- behind parent has had no
contact with the child, consular officials may be asked to write letters to
various registration offices in Germany to locate the child's relatives.
Consular officials can also perform home visits with the child when
requested by a left- behind parent and consented to by the foreign parent.
According to State, consular officers conduct most home visits unless (1)
the foreign parent refuses a visit, (2) a child lives a great distance from
the consular office, or (3) the workload of the consular official prohibits
a personal visit. In addition, U. S. consular officials can obtain from
German authorities information about the status of cases and report this
information to both parents. They can also seek clarification as to how a
particular aspect of a case is proceeding.
According to U. S. consular officials in Germany, 97 inquiries about child
welfare and location and 23 home visits were conducted in fiscal years 1999
and 2000 (see table 2).
1 State Department's Office of Children's Issues provides direction to
foreign service posts on assistance to left- behind parents. Appendix I:
Consular Assistance to LeftBehind
Parents
Appendix I: Consular Assistance to LeftBehind Parents
Page 12 GAO- 01- 423 Parental Child Abduction
Table 2: Consular Assistance to Left- Behind Parents (FY 1999- 2000)
Instances Assistance FY 1999 FY
2000
Inquiries conducted about abducted child's welfare and location 42 55 Visits
requested by Office of Children's Issues on behalf of leftbehind parent 18
28
Residential welfare visits of abducted child conducted 9 14 Visits attempted
but denied by abducting parent a 3 7 Visits not attempted b 6 7 Inquiries
made into case status c 13 17 a German Youth Authority officials may visit
abducted U. S. children when the abducting parent does not permit visits by
consular officials. Also, if an abducting parent denies a consular visit,
then German courts can intervene. However, as explained earlier in this
report, German courts may not intervene; they have been reluctant to enforce
visitation orders for left- behind parents in U. S. cases. b U. S. consular
officers explained that they could not perform requested visits where the
child lived a
great distance from the consular office or when the workload of the consular
official prohibited a personal visit. c U. S. consular officers made
specific inquiries for left- behind parents into the status of their cases.
Source: Information reported by the U. S. consulates in Berlin, Dusseldorf,
Frankfurt, Hamburg, and Munich, Germany.
In addition to citing specific services they provide to left- behind
parents, U. S. consular officials told us that they have been more closely
involved in helping the Office of Children's Issues to monitor the
resolution of U. S. Hague Convention cases since U. S. government attention
on U. S. children abducted to Germany heightened in 2000. During our
fieldwork in November 2000, we found that these officials were involved in
organizing meetings and maintaining communication with the German central
authority and Ministry of Justice on the status of U. S. cases. For example,
consular officials in Berlin provided logistical support for U. S.- German
working group meetings held in July and September 2000.
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology Page 13 GAO- 01- 423 Parental Child
Abduction
Our review focused on congressional concerns about Germany's handling of U.
S. parental child abduction cases under the Hague Convention. To gather
information for our analysis, we interviewed more than 40 key officials and
representatives from the State Department, the German government, the Hague
Secretariat in the Netherlands, and organizations dedicated to researching
and understanding issues associated with international parental child
abduction.
To identify what actions Germany has taken or plans it has under way to
address U. S. concerns about Germany's handling of parental child abduction
cases, we reviewed State Department reports from May 1999 to January 2001
that documented systemic problems with Germany's implementation of the Hague
Convention and identified German actions taken or planned. These reports
also identified State's goals and timetables for Germany to take remedial
measures. To confirm and expand our understanding of information in these
reports, we conducted fieldwork in Berlin, Bonn, Cologne, Dusseldorf,
Frankfurt, Munich, and Potsdam, Germany. We interviewed senior German
justice ministry officials, local family court judges, social workers, and
private attorneys in those cities. We also interviewed officials from the
German central authority, U. S. officials in Germany supporting State
Department efforts to resolve abduction cases, and a French judge, seconded
to the German Ministry of Justice to work on difficult German- French Hague
Convention cases.
To determine how Germany's actions have affected the handling and outcome of
U. S. cases, we reviewed the status, outcome, and other characteristics of
cases adjudicated after German authorities began taking actions. We reviewed
files that State's Office of Children's Issues maintains on cases initiated
by left- behind parents from July 1999, when Germany began to concentrate
the number of family courts hearing international abduction cases under the
Hague Convention, through January 2001. These files included administrative,
judicial, and communicative information related to each case.
We recorded the results of our analysis of State's files in a database and
subsequently performed independent checks to ensure that data for each case
were accurate. We compared the outcomes of cases opened and closed from July
1999 through January 2001 with those outcomes from cases opened and closed
from January 1995 through June 1999.
We performed our work from October 2000 through March 2001 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix II: Scope
and Methodology
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
Page 14 GAO- 01- 423 Parental Child Abduction
John Brummet, (202) 512- 5260 In addition to the contact named above,
Michael Zola, Janice Villar Morrison, and Mark Dowling made key
contributions to this report. Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments GAO Contact Acknowledgments
(711569)
The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are
$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also accepted.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail:
U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013
Orders by visiting:
Room 1100 700 4 th St., NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) Washington, DC
20013
Orders by phone:
(202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.
Orders by Internet
For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email
message with “info” in the body to:
Info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
gao. gov
Contact one:
? Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm
? E- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov
? 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system) Ordering Information
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
*** End of document ***