Printer friendly version
EmailATTACHMENT “A”
LIST BY COUNTRY OF APPLICATIONS FOR THE RETURN OF CHILDREN SUBMITTED BY UNITED STATES CITIZENS TO THE CENTRAL AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES THAT REMAIN UNRESOLVED MORE THAN 18 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING.
**The following acronyms are used throughout:
CI- Office of Children’s Issues. CI is an office in Overseas Citizen Services of the Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department
of State
CA- Foreign Central Authority responsible for Hague Abduction Convention Issues in the Foreign country
LBP - Left-behind parent from whom a child has been abducted or wrongfully retained abroad
TP- Taking parent, who abducted or wrongfully retained the child abroad
Please note that case summaries below do not include references to the Department of State''s and overseas posts’ frequent and ongoing conversations and meetings with left-behind parents.
COLOMBIA
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: August 23, 1998
Date Hague Application filed: March 11, 1999
Has child been located? Yes
The child was ordered returned to the United States in March 2000, but the decision was reversed in October 2000, upon appeal. Since then, the case has moved through 5 different courts without resolution. The U.S. Embassy and CI have approached Colombian authorities at various times on behalf of the LBP. Since February 2001, the Embassy has sent five diplomatic notes, the most recent of which was forwarded in November 2002, to the Colombian government on this case, urging its swift completion in compliance with Colombian commitments under the Hague Convention. In August 2003, Embassy Bogota asked for assistance by diplomatic note in gaining consular access to the child. At the request of the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bienestar Familiar, Colombia''s social services agency, attempted to facilitate a consular officer visit with the child. The taking parent would not grant access unless ordered by a Colombian court. The CA requested that the court hearing the Hague case assist in obtaining consular access. The court has refused to do so.
Actions taken by the Chief of Mission: Six diplomatic notes have been sent to the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the case since February 2001. In January 2003, the Ambassador met with the Foreign Minister to discuss the case, and in February 2003, the Consul General in Bogota met with the director of the Colombian Central Authority to discuss Hague compliance issues and this case in particular.
ECUADOR Case 1 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: February 6, 1995
Date Hague application filed: February 24, 1995
Has child been located? No
The LBP in this case filed a Hague application for the child’s return immediately after the abduction. The case remained in the Ecuador court system for several years with little action. Eventually a court ordered the return of the child; however, the order was never enforced because the TP hid the child. Additionally, the LBP was not initially aware of the order for return, having been misinformed by the attorney that the case had been lost. The Ecuador CA did not inform the LBP of the return order either. In 2001, CI contacted the LBP with information regarding the order for return. Recent attempts by CI and the U.S. Embassy to obtain a case update from the CA have proved unsuccessful.
ECUADOR Case 2 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: Nov. 16, 2001
Date Hague application filed: February 25, 2002
Have children been located? Yes
The LBP filed a Hague application for the return of two children in February 2002. In June 2002, the Embassy of Ecuador notified CI that additional legal documentation was needed. CI requested clarification and was informed that the CA required a court order relating to custody. CI protested this requirement with the CA, noting that it was not necessary under the Hague Convention. CI last had contact with the LBP in early 2002, when the LBP indicated that copies of custody orders would be forwarded to CI when available. CI received no correspondence from the LBP and, in July and September 2003, CI wrote to the LBP, with no response.
FRANCE
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: April 2001
Date Hague application filed: June 2001
Has child been located? Yes
The child was abducted while still a toddler and the LBP''s Hague application for return of the child was approved by the court of first instance in January 2002. The TP appealed the court’s decision to return the child, lost the appeal, and disappeared shortly thereafter. French authorities were unable to locate the TP and child for nearly two years. Finally, in January 2004, they were found hiding in a convent. The TP was arrested, but was released on parole and is required to check in with the police twice a week. Authorities are working to re-unite LBP with the child, who has not seen LBP in almost three years. The Consul General and Embassy officials met with French CA representatives in January 2004 to discuss Hague compliance issues and updates on this case.
GERMANY Case 1 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: July 17, 2000
Date Hague application filed: December 12, 2000
Has child been located? Yes
The LBP filed an application for return of the child. In March 2002 a judge ruled the child should be returned to the United States. The order was not enforced since the TP and child went into hiding and could not be located. The TP’s location was eventually confirmed in August 2003 and the German CA made preparations to attempt enforcement of the return order. The LBP wished to consult local counsel and the child’s guardian ad litem before enforcement proceedings commenced, so enforcement was halted. There was also the fear that TP would flee again if notified of enforcement proceedings.
Actions taken by Chief of Mission: The Chief of Mission has directed consular staff to continue to work with German Justice
Ministry and CA officials to assist the LBP and the child.
GERMANY Case 2 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: July 2000
Date Hague application filed: November 2000
Has child been located? Yes
The TP abducted the child to Germany in July 2000. A judge reviewed the LBP''s application and in July 2001 ordered the child’s return to the United States. The TP appealed the return order, lost the appeal, and refused to return the child. The LBP and German authorities made several unsuccessful attempts to pick up the child to enforce the return order. In late 2001, the TP and child went into hiding. The LBP filed criminal charges in Germany against the TP for kidnapping, and the latter was found guilty in 2003. The LBP recently decided not to pursue enforcement of the return order due to the psychological trauma previously inflicted upon the child. Mediation has been suggested to assist the LBP in re-building a relationship with the child.
Actions taken by Chief of Mission: The Chief of Mission has directed consular staff to continue to work with German Justice Ministry and CA officials to assist the LBP and the child.
HONDURAS
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: April 1, 1997
Date Hague application filed: May 27, 1998
Has child been located? Yes
The designated CA, the Instituto Hondureño de la Niñez y la familia (IHNFA), has at no point addressed the return of this child to the United States. IHNFA has, at the request of the Embassy, made welfare visits to the child and reports of these visits have been provided to the LBP. After removing the child to Honduras, the Honduran-American TP re-entered the United States in 2003. The child’s abduction to Honduras violated a U.S. court order issued in December 1997 that mandated that the child not be removed from the court’s jurisdiction. The U.S. civil court that issued the order is holding the TP in contempt and has indicated that the TP will remain in custody until the child returns to the United States. The TP also faces pending criminal charges under the International Parental Kidnapping Act. The Honduran government is monitoring the TP Honduran-American national''s U.S. civil court case. At a recent U.S. court hearing, an official from the Honduran Consulate indicated the Honduran government will not allow the child to travel to the U.S. In 2003, Embassy representatives raised the issue of Honduran non-compliance with the Hague Convention with IHNFA officials and the President of the Honduran Congress.
IRELAND
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: July 1999
Date Hague application filed: November 15, 1999
Has child been located? Yes (subsequent to close of reporting period)
A July 1999 Irish court order of return resulted in the TP and child traveling to the United States but they did not attend a scheduled custody hearing in California. Instead, they returned to Ireland and disappeared. A new return application was filed but the Irish CA could not locate them. The TP and child were found in October 2003, in the United Kingdom, living under assumed names. The Irish CA transferred the case file to the UK CA and closed its case. Hague proceedings are now underway in the U.K. The case was adjourned until March 2004, pending submission of reports investigating the TP’s claim that the child is now settled in the U.K.
ISRAEL
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: April 18, 1997
Date Hague application filed: October 6, 1997
Have children been located? No
In November 1998, an Israeli court ordered that the children be returned to the United States; the TP failed to comply with court order. In January 1999, after attempts to locate the TP and children in Israel had failed, the court issued another order instructing the police to locate the children. Unfortunately, efforts undertaken by police since then have failed to locate the children.
CI has maintained regular, ongoing contact with the LBP, U.S. and Israeli law enforcement, and the Israeli CA. In an effort to help the CA and foreign law enforcement locate the TP, CI and federal law enforcement provided them with the TP''s Department of Motor Vehicles photograph. At CI''s request, the director of the CA has had several meetings with law enforcement officials regarding their efforts to locate the children. The CA informed CI that search efforts had been expanded, but the children''s whereabouts remain a mystery.
MAURITIUS Case 1 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: December 4, 1998
Date Hague application filed: February 3, 1999
Have children been located? Yes
This is one of two cases in Mauritius in which the application was filed after the country became a party to the Convention (October 1993) but before the country’s legislative body incorporated the Convention into the law of Mauritius (October 2000). The Mauritian CA said it could not accept the applications at the time because the Convention had not been incorporated into domestic law. In light of the passage of implementing legislation, and at the prompting of CI and the U.S. Embassy, the CA has said it believes it could bring the case before the Court in the hope of having it considered. Initially, a court date was scheduled for January 2003. However, no court action was taken during the reporting period partly due to confusion over documents required by Mauritius. The CA does not have a transparent procedure. The LBP has been asked twice in the last year to revise an affidavit required in support of the return application. In March 2003, Embassy representatives conducted a welfare visit to the children. A procedural hearing for submission of both parties'' affidavits before a Supreme Court judge was scheduled for February 2004.
The U.S. Embassy in Port Louis has been in regular contact with the LBP and the CA. In May 2002, Embassy representatives met with senior officials of the Ministry of Women''s Rights, Child Development and Family Welfare to discuss this case. In June 2002, Embassy officials met with the Assistant Secretary of the Ministry of Women''s Rights, Child Development and Family Welfare to discuss how the Ministry could assist in ensuring effective implementation and application of the Convention. In early 2004, embassy officials met with the head of the CA to discuss the case and press for its resolution in a manner consistent with the Convention.
MAURITIUS Case 2 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: February 14, 1998
Date Hague application filed: June 9, 1998
Has child been located? Yes
This case was filed under the Convention between the time of Mauritian accession and the passage of implementing legislation. This was the reason the CA initially took no action on it. In June 2002, the Mauritian government requested additional documentation from the LBP. The requested documents were forwarded in September 2002. An October 2002 request for another document was fulfilled that same month, and in November 2002, the Mauritian State Law Office introduced a motion to return the child to the LBP. Several court dates were scheduled throughout 2003, but no hearings took place. An initial hearing before a Supreme Court judge was held in January 2004 and a full hearing before the Supreme Court is currently scheduled for June 2004.
Embassy officials have assisted the LBP to interface with Mauritian government officials. In May 2002, Embassy representatives
met with senior officials of the Ministry of Women''s Rights, Child Development and Family Welfare to raise the profile of
this case and followed up a month later with discussions with the Assistant Secretary of the Ministry of Women''s Rights,
Child Development and Family Welfare on improving the Ministry''s effectiveness with respect to implementation and application
of the Convention. In early 2004, embassy officials met with the head of the CA to discuss the case and press for its resolution
in a manner consistent with the Convention.
MEXICO Case 1 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: November 22, 1993
Date Hague application filed: November 8, 1994
Has child been located? No
The LBP filed the application for return directly with the Mexican CA and first communicated with the Department of State in August 2001. The TP filed an amparo (constitutional challenge) objecting to a Family Judge order that the child be taken into protective custody of social services pending the resolution of the case. The amparo was denied but the TP successfully evaded notice of the next hearing date and since then, all attempts to locate the TP or child have failed. In December 2001, the LBP provided CI with an address for the TP and the information was immediately forwarded to the CA. Chief of Mission raised this case at Binational meetings in 1999 and 2000, and with the Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001, highlighting problems caused by not locating children. The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs also discussed this issue with the Mexican delegation to the Special Commission on the operation of the Hague Convention held in The Netherlands in March 2001. The Department raised the status of this case with the Legal Advisor to the Embassy of Mexico in November 2001. In October 2002, a judge returned the case to the CA after several unsuccessful attempts to locate the child at addresses supplied by CI. The CA forwarded the case to the Interpol unit at Mexico’s Federal Investigative Agency (AFI) for further investigation to locate the child and taking parent. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003. During that meeting the CA reported that Mexican authorities are still unable to locate the child. Assistant Secretary Harty again raised the case in a meeting with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs in January 2004. Two attempts to arrange consular visits through the TP''s parent in early 2004 were unsuccessful.
MEXICO Case 2 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: August 1, 1993
Date Hague application filed: June 23, 1997
Have children been located? Yes
This case involves two children. Filing of a complete Hague application was delayed first by the LBP submitting an incomplete
application, then by the Mexican CA’s repeated requests for originals of documents and translations previously sent, and finally
because the court to which it was assigned could not locate the file. The Department forwarded the incomplete Hague application
to the CA in June 1997. The Department notified the LBP that the application was incomplete and requested the needed documents.
In September 1999, the CA acknowledged the application was complete. The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs discussed
this case with her Mexican counterparts at Binational meetings in 1999 and 2000. Chief of Mission raised this case with the
Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001. The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs also discussed this issue
with the Mexican delegation to the Special Commission on the operation of the Hague Convention held in The Netherlands in
March 2001.The Department queried the CA about this case in August and October 2001. The Department raised the case’s status
with the Legal Advisor to the Embassy of Mexico in November 2001. CA staff advised the Department in February 2002 that the
court had lost the file in 2000 and they were preparing a certified copy from the CA records to send to the court. The CA
reported in October 2003 that the LBP decided not to pursue the children’s return, asking instead for access. The TP and children
moved and the CA was unable to locate the children until December 2003, when they were found at the home of a relative of
the TP. The case was returned to a judge for processing and the court has requested confirmation whether the LBP is available
to attend a hearing. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again
in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
MEXICO Case 3 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: February 28, 1996
Date Hague application filed: October 27, 1997
Has child been located? Yes
The court hearing the case denied the application for return in June 1998, apparently finding that the LBP was not exercising
rights of custody before the child''s removal to Mexico. The decision was appealed by the LBP and in February 1999 the court
ordered the case remanded for a re-hearing because the child was not represented by counsel in earlier court proceedings.
The LBP appealed this decision and asked the court to order the child returned to the United States. That appeal was denied
in February 2000. The LBP then filed an amparo (constitutional challenge) and the case was forwarded back to the courts for review.
Since then the Department has repeatedly asked the Mexican CA for information regarding any progress in the courts. The Department
facilitated a visit by the LBP with the child and communication with the TP in November 1999 and helped pass communications
between the CA and the LBP in 2002. Chief of Mission raised this case at Binational meetings in 1999 and 2000, and with the
Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001. Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs discussed the case with the Mexican
delegation to the Special Commission on the operation of the Hague Convention held in the The Netherlands in March 2001.The
Department raised the status of this case with the Legal Advisor to the Embassy of Mexico in November 2001. The CA reported
in October 2003 that an amparo filed by the LBP had not been resolved. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in
November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
MEXICO Case 4 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: August 15, 1997
Date Hague application filed: January 2, 1998
Have children been located? Yes
In January 2001, CI provided the Mexican CA the address of the school the two children attended, but until recently the CA stated the children could not be located. Chief of Mission raised this case at Binational meetings in 1999 and 2000, and with the Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001, highlighting problems caused by not locating children. The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs also discussed this issue with the Mexican delegation to the Special Commission on the operation of the Hague Convention held in The Netherlands in March 2001. The Department raised the status of this case with the Legal Advisor to the Embassy of Mexico in November 2001. The LBP visited both children in the summer of 2003 near a residence where the children have lived since being taken to Mexico. The CA reported in October 2003 that the case was forwarded to a court and in January 2004 the CA stated that a hearing date has been scheduled for April 2004. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
MEXICO Case 5 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: September 18, 1993
Date Hague application filed: April 10, 1998
Have children been located? No
Originally this case involved two children. In August 1998, the Mexican CA advised CI that the court was setting a date for the Hague hearing and asked the Department if the LBP would be able to attend. The LBP asked that the case be postponed until September 1998 to allow the LBP to travel to Mexico. Throughout 1998 and 1999, the Department repeatedly asked the CA if a hearing date had been set but the CA did not respond to these inquiries. The case was inactive for approximately one year when CI attempts to contact the LBP and determine the LBP''s whereabouts proved unsuccessful. The case was re-activated in November 2000 when the LBP contacted CI and provided a current contact address.
In July 2001, the LBP provided an address for the children and requested a consular welfare and whereabouts visit. A consular officer conducted a welfare and whereabouts visit in August 2001 and again in November 2002. CI offered assistance in re-establishing the LBP''s communication with the children by passing letters, packages and mail to them and translating phone calls. The Department passed exact location information regarding the children to the CA in August 2001, but no action resulted. Chief of Mission raised this case at Binational meetings in 1999 and 2000, and with the Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001, highlighting problems caused by not locating children. The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs also discussed this issue with the Mexican delegation to the Special Commission on the operation of the Hague Convention held in The Netherlands in March 2001. The Department raised the status of this case with the Legal Advisor to the Embassy of Mexico in November 2001. The LBP parent established telephone and mail contact with the older child by telephone. The TP, who had left the children with a grandparent and returned to the U.S., traveled to Mexico and sent the younger child back to the U.S. As of May 2003, only the older of the two children remained in Mexico. The LBP continued to pursue return of the older child until CI learned that in the fall of 2003, the TP returned to Mexico and took the older child, presumably bringing the child back to reside in the U.S.
MEXICO Case 6 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: February 14, 1999
Date Hague application filed: February 19, 1999
Has child been located? Yes
This case involves two children and was filed directly with the Mexican CA by the District Attorney’s Office in California. California authorities work directly with the LBP and the CA and inform CI of relevant important actions in the case. In response to a request from CI and the U.S. Embassy for a status update, the Mexican CA reported in October 2003 that the case had been forwarded to a court in 1999. When the judge could not locate the children, the case file was returned, presumably to the CA, but the file''s present location is unknown. The CA believes the file was forwarded to Mexican social services. CI regards the application as still pending re-location and resolution, but has not heard from the LBP since 2001. Chief of Mission raised this case at Binational meetings in 1999 and 2000, and with the Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001. The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs also discussed this issue with the Mexican delegation to the Special Commission on the operation of the Hague Convention held in The Netherlands in March 2001. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
MEXICO Case 7 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: December 15, 1998
Date Hague application filed: March 8, 1999
Has child been located? No
The Department worked with the LBP to locate the TP in Mexico in 1999 and 2000. The U.S. Mission confirmed the the TP’s work address in August 2000. The Department forwarded this information to the Mexican CA the same month. The CA, in response to repeated CI requests for case updates, reported in January 2002 that the case had been forwarded to the courts. The CA informed the U.S. Embassy in early 2004 that the court had never located the TP, and the case file was forwarded to Mexican Interpol for location of the TP and child. Chief of Mission raised this case at Binational meetings in 1999 and 2000, and with the Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001, highlighting problems caused by not locating children. The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs also discussed this issue with the Mexican delegation to the Special Commission on the operation of the Hague Convention held in The Netherlands in March 2001. Correspondence from CI to the LBP has remained unanswered since 2002. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
MEXICO Case 8 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: January 10, 1994
Date Hague application filed: March 9, 1999
Has child been located? No
The LBP is a Mexican national who forwarded the return application directly to the Mexican CA and maintains direct contact with the CA. In November 1999, in response to a request from the Mexican Embassy for an update on the case, CI queried the CA. In April 2000, the CA responded that the TP had filed an amparo against an order issued for the child''s return and the CA would inform CI of the results of the appeal. Department raised the status of this case with the Legal Advisor to the Embassy of Mexico in November 2001. The TP''s amparo was eventually denied, thus allowing the return to proceed. Chief of Mission raised this case at Binational meetings in 1999 and 2000, and with the Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001, highlighting problems caused by not locating children. The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs also discussed this issue with the Mexican delegation to the Special Commission on the operation of the Hague Convention held in The Netherlands in March 2001. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In early 2004, the CA reported that the child must be located in order for the return decision to be enforced.
MEXICO Case 9 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: May 5, 1999
Date Hague application filed: August 28, 1999
Have children been located? No
This case involves two children and was filed directly with the Mexican CA by the District Attorney’s Office in California. California authorities work directly with the LBP and CA and inform CI of important actions in the case. Chief of Mission raised this case at Binational meetings in 1999 and 2000, and with the Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001, highlighting problems caused by not locating children. The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs also discussed this issue with the Mexican delegation to the Special Commission on the operation of the Hague Convention held in The Netherlands in March 2001.Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In response to a case status request, the CA informed U.S. Embassy consular officials in early 2004 that the judge assigned to the case had not been able to locate the children.
MEXICO Case 10 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: December 1, 1997
Date Hague application filed: September 29, 1999
Have children been located? No
The Mexican CA forwarded this case to the courts in early 2000. No hearing date has ever been set because the exact location of the TP and the two children is still unknown. The Department raised the status of this case with the Legal Advisor to the Embassy of Mexico in November 2001. At a meeting with the CA in February 2002, the Department raised the case as illustrative of the problems caused in child abduction cases when courts are unable to locate children. In the spring of 2003, CI provided new information regarding the children''s location to the CA. Chief of Mission raised this case at Binational meetings in 1999 and 2000, and with the Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001, highlighting problems caused by not locating children. The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs also discussed this issue with the Mexican delegation to the Special Commission on the operation of The Hague Convention held in the Netherlands in March 2001. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In response to a case status request from CI, the CA reported in early 2004 that the case was sent to a court but no judge had yet been assigned to handle the case.
MEXICO Case 11 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: July 4, 1999
Date Hague application filed: November 4, 1999
Have children been located? No
The Mexican CA forwarded the case to the courts in 2000 but to date the authorities have not been able to locate the two children or TP in Mexico. The LBP, through a private investigator, developed information that the children may be in Canada. The Department forwarded a copy of the Hague applications to the Canadian CA as well. Chief of Mission raised this case at a Binational meeting in 2000, and with the Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001, highlighting problems caused by not locating children. The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs also discussed this issue with the Mexican delegation to the Special Commission on the operation of The Hague Convention held in The Netherlands in March 2001.The Department raised the status of this case with the Legal Advisor to the Embassy of Mexico in November 2001. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Mexican CA informed the U.S. Embassy in early 2004 that it would contact the LBP to obtain more leads on the children''s whereabouts. Though the left-behind parent applied for return of two children, the older child is now over 16 and thus falls outside the scope of the application.
MEXICO Case 12 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: October 5, 1999
Date Hague application filed: December 2, 1999
Has child been located? No
In June 2000, the Department provided the TP’s address to the Mexican CA. The case was forwarded to the presiding judge in the state in which the child was located who initially refused to take this case for jurisdictional reasons. While the jurisdictional issue was under review by the Mexican courts, the Department discussed alternate non-Hague remedies with the TP. The Department also worked with the U.S. Department of Justice to re-enter the child’s name into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) computer system in case the child returned to the United States without the LBP''s knowledge. Local U.S. police had taken the child’s name out of the system once the TP and child were located in Mexico claiming that the child was no longer “missing.”
The jurisdictional issue was eventually resolved and a hearing scheduled, but the TP disappeared with the child. After the TP failed to appear at three separate hearing dates between March and June 2001 the judge, in an unprecedented move in a Hague Convention case in Mexico, issued a warrant for the TP''s arrest. Chief of Mission raised this case at a Binational meeting in 2000, and with the Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001, highlighting problems caused by not locating children. The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs also discussed this issue with the Mexican delegation to the Special Commission on the operation of the Hague Convention held in The Netherlands in March 2001.The Department discussed the status of the case with the CA in October 2001 and queried when the warrant would be executed. The Department raised the status of this case with the Legal Advisor to the Embassy of Mexico in November 2001. At a meeting with the CA in February 2002, citing this case, the Department raised the problem caused in child abduction cases when children cannot be located by the court. The LBP’s contacts reported sighting the TP and child in November 2002. The second judge assigned to the case attempted to find the child. During the judge''s visit to the presumed residence, he found a room containing the child''s belongings but no child. The TP has not been arrested but the case remains with the judge pending location of the child. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
MEXICO Case 13 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: June 16, 1998
Date Hague application filed: February 21, 2000
Has child been located? No
The Mexican CA forwarded this case to the courts in April 2000. The family judge was unable to locate the child at the address provided and requested through the CA a new address or additional information to help locate the child or TP. CI forwarded this request to the LBP in October 2001. Chief of Mission raised this case at a Binational meetings in 2000 and with the Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001, highlighting problems caused by not locating children. The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs also discussed this issue with the Mexican delegation to the Special Commission on the operation of the Hague Convention held in The Netherlands in March 2001. The Department raised the status of this case with the Legal Advisor to the Embassy of Mexico in November 2001. At a meeting with the CA in February 2002, the Department raised the problems caused in child abduction cases when children cannot be located by the court. The CA reported in October 2003 that the case was forwarded to a judge for processing. However, the child was not found, and the case was subsequently forwarded to Mexican Interpol for investigation to locate the child. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
MEXICO Case 14 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: February 4, 2000
Date Hague application filed: March 19, 2001
Has child been located? No
The case was referred to Mexican Interpol after the Mexican CA was unable to locate the child. The LBP firmly believes that the TP and child live with the TP''s parent. It is believed that the TP uses several aliases to conceal their identity. CI requested FBI to visit the TP''s parent in May 2002. CI continues to work the case by requesting status updates from the Mexican CA and contacting the LBP. CI received no response from the LBP to correspondence sent in 2003, although the correspondence was not returned as undeliverable. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The CA reported in February 2004 that Mexican Interpol has been unable to locate the child.
MEXICO Case 15 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: July 1999
Date Hague application filed: December 9, 1999
Have children been located? No
After the LBP filed for dissolution of marriage in 1999, the TP took the two children to Mexico. The children were never located; the Mexican CA transferred the case to Mexican Interpol for investigation of the TP''s and children''s whereabouts in early 2002. Chief of Mission raised this case at a Binational meeting in 2000, and with the Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001, highlighting problems caused by not locating children. The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs also discussed this issue with the Mexican delegation to the Special Commission on the operation of the Hague Convention held in The Netherlands in March 2001. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
MEXICO Case 16 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: Early 2000
Date Hague application filed: Spring 2000
Has child been located? Yes
The case was filed directly with the Mexican CA by the California District Attorney. The CA reported to U.S. Embassy consular officers in the fall of 2003 that the judge reviewing the case had denied return after the LBP failed to provide proof of rights of custody. The CA later clarified that, in denying return, the judge also considered evidence that the LBP had brought the child to Mexico and left the child with a relative, who then voluntarily turned the child over to the TP. Chief of Mission raised this case at Binational meetings in 2000, and with the Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001, highlighting problems caused by not locating children. The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs also discussed this issue with the Mexican delegation to the Special Commission on the operation of the Hague Convention held in The Netherlands in March 2001. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
MEXICO Case 17 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: September 4, 2000
Date Hague application filed: February 12, 2001
Has child been located? No
This case originally involved three children taken to Mexico by the TP for a two-week visit. The LBP filed a return application
when the TP refused to return them after the two weeks. The two older children escaped and were returned to the LBP in April
2001. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January
2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The case regarding the youngest child
was finally brought before a judge in February 2004. The judge requested original documents because of rumors that a cousin
who looks very much like the LBP has stated the child belongs to her. The Mexican CA cannot locate the original documents
forwarded in support of the Hague application but has "certified" all documents associated with the case for the court''s
consideration. California justice officials are obtaining a new original birth certificate to forward to the court.
MEXICO Case 18 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: January 8, 2000
Date Hague application filed: May 1, 2001
Has child been located? Yes, after reporting period ended
This case remained active throughout the reporting period but was resolved in October 2003 by the child''s return to the LBP. From the time of the Hague application filing until the child was recovered, Mexican authorities were unable to locate the child at any of the addresses provided by the LBP. Relatives of the LBP visited Mexico and pointed out the house where the child lived. The TP and LBP met soon after but, by early 2002, discussions regarding access to the child broke down. The LBP was convinced that the TP and child continued residing in the same community, although a judge visited the address and did not find the child. The child was recovered in October 2003 when the TP was stopped for a traffic violation in the U.S. Upon locating the child, it was discovered that the TP had returned to the U.S. with the child in early 2003.
MEXICO Case 19 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: November 16, 1998
Date Hague application filed: June 11, 2001
Has child been located? No
This case was filed directly with the Mexican CA by the District Attorney’s Office in California. California authorities work directly with the LBP and CA and inform CI of relevant actions in the case. CI learned about the case in March 2002. U.S. Embassy officials, California justice officials and the Mexican Consulate in Los Angeles have all pressed the Mexican CA for updates on Mexican action taken on the case. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In early 2004, the CA informed the U.S. Embassy that a judge has been assigned the case though no hearing has yet been scheduled.
MEXICO Case 20 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: February 9, 2001
Date Hague application filed: July 25, 2001
Has child been located? No
This case was filed directly with the Mexican CA by the District Attorney’s Office in California. California authorities work directly with the LBP and CA and inform CI of relevant actions in the case. The TP contacted the LBP twice requesting money for the child''s medical treatment. In those requests, the TP gave LBP a contact telephone number and address that was the same as the location information listed on the Hague application. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The CA has been unable to locate the child and informed the U.S. Embassy in early 2004 that the case file has been referred to Mexican Interpol for investigation to locate the TP and child.
MEXICO Case 21 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: August 28, 2000
Date Hague application filed: August 23, 2001
Have children been located? No
The TP took the two children to Mexico in August 2000. The LBP did not know their location until the older child telephoned to inform the LBP that they would not return to the U.S. LBP has supplied the Mexican CA and Interpol with numerous addresses for the TP and TP''s family to assist in finding the children. U.S. Embassy consular officials attempted to visit the children in June 2003 but did not find them at home. The CA suggested that LBP should consider changing the application from return to access. The LBP refused to do so. Continuing attempts to locate the children have proved unsuccessful to date. The CA has forwarded the case to a state superior court for action, but no judge has yet been assigned to the case. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
MEXICO Case 22 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: August 21, 2000
Date Hague application filed: August 30, 2001
Has child been located? No
The LBP last saw the child in July 2000 before the TP took the infant to visit grandparents in Mexico. The LBP has provided the CA with updated address information for the TP and child several times since filing the return application, but the child has not been located. The Mexican CA referred the case to Interpol for location of the child and TP in summer 2002 and no progress has been reported since. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
POLAND Case 1 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: November 28, 1998
Date Hague application filed: August 4, 1999
Have children been located? No
In July 2001, a court of appeals overturned a lower court decision and ruled in favor of returning the children to the LBP. In November 2001, the TP was ordered to return the children to the LBP, who had traveled to Poland, within three days. At that time, the TP disappeared with the children, and they have been missing ever since. The LBP traveled to Poland several times, employed the services of a private investigator, and they both worked with the Polish regional prosecutor. In August 2003, Polish authorities located two children they believed to be the missing children and emailed photographs to the LBP, who determined that the children were not the ones being sought in this case.
U.S. Embassy officials in Warsaw have repeatedly brought this case to the attention of the Polish CA, the Ministry of Justice, and the head of the International Cooperation Office. Assistant Secretary Maura Harty and Deputy Assistant Secretary Janice Jacobs each discussed this case with the Consular Affairs Chief of the Polish Foreign Ministry in 2003; Embassy officials specifically raised the case with the Polish Foreign Ministry in January 2003 and with the Ministry of Justice in November 2003. In February 2004, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Daniel Smith, accompanied by the U.S. Consul General, delivered a formal demarche to the senior officials of the Polish Foreign Ministry regarding U.S. concern about Poland''s continued inability to locate the children. Assistant Secretary Maura Harty reiterated our concerns about this case in a meeting with Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs Undersecretary Jakub T. Wolski in February 2004 when she discussed the establishment of a high-level bilateral working group on consular issues.
Action taken by the Chief of Mission: Diplomatic note in 2001, a meeting with Minister of Justice in 2002, two letters to Polish courts in 2002, three diplomatic notes and three letters to local officials in 2003.
POLAND Case 2 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: March 30, 2000
Date Hague application filed: December 12, 2000
Has child been located? Yes
In January 2001, the Polish Court of Justice issued a temporary order that the child not be removed from Poland. Pending a final decision on the case, the court first granted the LBP access to the child in July 2001. In June 2003, the court ordered psychological exams of both parents and the child. The LBP has traveled to Poland several times to accommodate the court and visit with the child. In November 2003, the court denied the return of the child; an appeal was filed the following month. CI has expressed concern to the CA regarding the psychological examination of the parents, and the continued use of a faulty translation of the Hague Convention by courts deciding Hague cases, including in this case. In February 2004, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Daniel Smith, accompanied by the U.S. Consul General, delivered a formal demarche to senior officials of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The demarche requested that the Polish government take steps to remove the flawed translation of the Convention from circulation, and that the decision to deny return in this case be reviewed by the Ministry of Justice. Assistant Secretary Maura Harty reiterated the Department''s concerns about this case in a meeting with Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs Undersecretary Jakub T. Wolski in February 2004 when she discussed the establishment of a high-level bilateral working group on consular issues. In late February 2004, the Polish Circuit Court denied the appeal, stating that the lower court correctly found that the child and TP had returned to Poland in November 1999 with the LBP''s knowledge and consent, that the child''s March 2000 visit to the LBP in the U.S. was temporary and, therefore, the child was not "habitually resident" in the United States at the time of the alleged abduction. The appellate court''s decision is final and cannot be appealed.
Actions taken by the Chief of Mission: The U.S. Ambassador to Poland and the Polish Minister of Justice discussed this case in a meeting in February 2002. Separately, Embassy consular officials also met with Ministry of Justice officials on the case in 2002.
SOUTH AFRICA Case 1 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: May 2, 2001
Date Hague application filed: August 7, 2001
Have children been located? Yes
The first hearing on this case did not occur until September 2002, over a year after the filing of the Hague application. In November 2002, the court ruled to deny return. The court''s stated basis for the decision was a finding that the LBP had acquiesced to the children''s removal to South Africa. The court accepted correspondence between the parents as evidence that the LBP had acquiesced in the children''s continued residence in South Africa. The LBP was granted leave to appeal in November 2002. In February 2003, the LBP was informed that the Court had lost its files on this case and that LBP would have to pay costs of reconstructing the files. The November 2003 appeal hearing before the High Court resulted in a judgment dismissing the appeal and assigning the LBP costs, thus affirming the denial of the children''s return to the U.S. Consular staff attended the November 2003 appeals court hearing. In December 2003, the LBP was considering whether to file a separate appeal.
SOUTH AFRICA Case 2 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: May 11, 1998
Date Hague application filed: December 29, 1998
Have children been located? Yes
This case has languished as a result of issues regarding funding of the legal costs related to the Hague application hearing process. CI has contacted the South African CA a number of times to seek its assistance. The LBP had a South African attorney in February of 1999, but the South African Legal Aid Fund that was paying the attorney to handle the case ran out of money. The attorney was not willing to continue without being paid and the LBP would have had to assume legal costs. The LBP has not made any recent efforts to communicate with CI.
SPAIN Case 1 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: March 01, 1995
Date Hague Application filed: June 12, 1995
Has child been located? Yes, but then subsequently disappeared.
A lower court ordered the child returned in February 1996 and an appeals court upheld the decision in 1996. Subsequent to the final ruling, the TP took the child into hiding in Spain. From June 1995 through July 2001, repeated search orders have been issued by the Spanish Courts and continuous attempts were made by the Department of State and the LBP to share possible leads with local Spanish officials as to the child''s location. Despite the Spanish authorities'' inability to locate the child and enforce the return order, the TP was able to continue legal efforts to resist the return order. In July 1999 a final motion to vacate the judgment for return was rejected, but the order was again not immediately enforced. In July 2001, the LBP was notified that the TP had initiated divorce proceedings in Spanish courts that would include custody hearings. CI brought the conflict with the Hague return order to the attention of the CA, but no response was forthcoming. Subsequently, the TP contacted the LBP through the TP’s attorney, and two separate private attempts to negotiate the child''s return have failed. An Interpol notice has been issued in connection with the case. Divorce proceedings are ongoing in Spain; the LBP has requested that a U.S. divorce order be recognized. The Spanish authorities have yet to enforce the order for return. A local attorney did locate the TP and child. However, the judge failed to act to enforce the return order.
This case has been raised repeatedly by Embassy Madrid and by Assistant Secretary Maura Harty during her March 2003 visit to Spain.
SPAIN Case 2 :
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: September 06, 2000
Date Hague Application filed: November 13, 2000
Has child been located? Yes
The CA located the child almost immediately and a consular officer performed a welfare visit in November 2000. However, when an attempt was made to serve the TP for the Hague hearing in March 2001, the child had been moved. A second search was conducted and the TP was served in October 2001. Repeated CI requests for notice of the court hearing date went unanswered until January 2002, when the CA informed CI that the hearing was postponed pending a psychological evaluation of the child. A hearing date was set for June 2002. Repeated attempts by CI and Embassy Madrid to follow up with the CA brought no information until May 2003,when CI received a fax with an untranslated court ruling dated September 2002, denying the Hague application and indicating that the attorney prosecuting the application (a Spanish government lawyer) had declined to appeal. In the latter part of 2003, CI confirmed that no further appeals were available and advised the LBP that it would provide assistance to pursue non-Hague remedies if the LBP wished.
TURKEY
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: February 2, 2001
Date Hague application filed: March 5, 2002
Has child been located? Yes
In March 2002, the CA acknowledged receipt of the Hague application and stated it had been sent to the local public prosecutor to see if a voluntary return could be negotiated. In May and June 2002, CI and the U.S. Embassy in Ankara made repeated requests for a status report, with no response. In July 2002, the CA stated that the TP would not agree to return the child voluntarily and a hearing had been scheduled for June 2002. The LBP had been waiting to hear if voluntary return negotiations were successful before retaining a Turkish attorney. CI asked if the June 2002 hearing date was a misprint. In August 2002, CI was notified by the CA that in June, a Turkish court had denied the LBP’s Hague application for return. CI immediately protested to the CA that the LBP did not have legal representation at the hearing. The CA agreed and asked the local public prosecutor to lodge an appeal. In October 2003 the appeals court upheld the decision of the lower court without taking into consideration that the LBP had been unrepresented in the first proceeding. The court stated, incorrectly, that the LBP had been represented by the CA public prosecutor. The CA asked the local public prosecutor to request whatever reexamination of the appellate court’s decision was possible.
The Embassy raised this case multiple times with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Justice, and Appeal Court officials, both in person and in writing. Assistant Secretary Maura Harty discussed this case and Hague compliance issues in general with the Minister of Justice in December 2003. In January 2004, CI learned that the Turkish Supreme Court refused to review the appeals court decision on the grounds that the CA did not appeal in a timely manner. The father did have legal representation during the two appeal cases. With the Hague process exhausted, the case for return of the child was closed in early 2004.
ZIMBABWE
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: August 8, 2000
Date Hague application filed: November 28, 2000
Has child been located? Yes
Although U.S. Embassy consular personnel have maintained regular contact with the Zimbabwean CA regarding this case, there has been no court action. After submission of the Hague return application to the CA, the TP agreed to voluntarily return to the U.S. with the child. Both the TP and child are still in Zimbabwe; they are awaiting the TP''s U.S. immigration processing so the TP and child can travel back to the U.S. together. The LBP has not been in contact with CI since February 2002 and attempts by CI to contact the LBP have been unsuccessful.
