Translation service costs -- re-evaluate cost to parents.

Presenters/facilitators
Linda Brown, CA/OCS/CI
Beth Payne, CA/OCS/CI
Mary Helen Carlson, Office of the Legal Advisor, Department of State

Discussion leaders began each session with a brief explanation of how the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations provides a framework for U.S. embassy officials' efforts to protect U.S. citizen minors overseas. Embassy officials can help left-behind parents maintain a connection to their children through welfare/whereabouts visits conducted by embassy consular officers. In addition to providing this link, embassies have bilateral discussions with foreign governments in the form of informal meetings, conferences at working group and senior levels, diplomatic correspondence, and demarches (formal meetings between U.S. and foreign government officials in which the U.S. official puts forth an official request on behalf of the U.S. government.).

The U.S. Secretary of State, senior Department officials and U.S. Ambassadors are all actively engaged on issues related to international child abduction and the ability of American parents to obtain access to their children overseas. For example, the U.S. and Mexico meet regularly in Bi-national sessions, with international child abduction as one of the key subject of continued discussion. Another example of bilateral discussions is the joint training sessions for U.S. and foreign judges hearing Hague abduction cases. Some training has been done with German judges and more training is planned for later this year. In the multilateral arena, the Department is working with The Hague Permanent Bureau on judicial training and good practices guides for Central Authorities.

A parent noted that judicial training alone will not make things better if countries cannot or will not enforce court orders. Beth Payne suggested that while negotiations can take time, the Department is seeing improvement in more recent cases. In some countries, a court may have improperly denied the return of children under the Hague Convention in earlier years, but is now complying with the Convention in more recent cases. Some countries have started concentrating Hague cases in only a few courts, limiting the number of judges that hear Hague convention applications. This makes judicial education and training easier and limits the possibility that judges will improperly treat a Hague convention case as a domestic child custody matter.

Another parent agreed that judicial training and education can be a good thing, but maybe the drive to resolve these cases and return children would improve if policy makers could picture themselves losing contact with their own children for years on end. The parent said that it seems at times that the system puts more effort in dealing with stolen cars than with the return of children. There is a perception that the Department of State and U.S. Embassies see their role as "making nice with other countries" and this effort to remain on good terms with other countries is hard to reconcile with a strong and effective role as an advocate for getting back abducted children.

The diplomatic goal should be to raise such abduction issues and make it part of the U.S. government's bilateral relationship with other countries. Department officials, including senior officials and Ambassadors, do meet with foreign authorities and foreign Ambassadors to the U.S. to voice Department concerns and make things happen. However, there are situations when a foreign government will not respond to the Department's concerns. How do we get past this and achieve our interests and goals?

When looking at improvements, one parent noted that U.S. authorities have a 90% return rate for sending abducted children back to their homes overseas, proposing that the Department of Justice could more be effective at returning abducted children than the Department of State. Most countries place responsibility for the Hague Central Authority in their equivalent of the Department of Justice. This same parent believed that the Attorney General would be good at handling the issue but could not provide any concrete examples of how a move of responsibility would change the status quo the way that returns are accomplished or improve the record for children being returned.

Another parent suggested that every person exiting the U.S. with a child should be checked to see if he or she has custody of the child. Some parents felt that there should be some control of adults traveling with children on all flights, domestic as well as international. The lack of such checks and immigration departure controls is a major concern, considering the frequency of flights, the range of destinations and the speed with which an abductor can book a flight to flee with the child. One parent noted that the volume of parents and children who travel for legitimate reasons is so large that the inconvenience and added burden posed by such wide-ranging checks would probably be an unrealistic goal. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Overseas Citizens Services Dianne Andruch stated that the development of a form of exit/departure controls for international travel is already in the works. Some suggested that any lookout system developed to alert officials that an abduction could be in progress should be shared with the transportation companies as this might flag the event earlier and allow more time for officials and the other parent to act. Another parent suggested there might be utility and a method for annotating a child's passport to flag the need for closer inspection or documentary checks that confirm the right of the adult to travel with the child. Someone noted that many Latin American countries, like Mexico, require a signed permission from the non-accompanying parent before the child can leave the country.

Beth Payne and Linda Brown noted that there is a passport lookout system that custodial parents can register with to alert U.S. passport issuing offices worldwide if a child's custody is in dispute or the parent fears someone will seek a passport for their child without their knowledge and consent. This lookout system strengthens safeguards built into the two-parent signature rule used since July 2001 for all passport applications submitted for U.S. citizens under 14 years of age. These preventive measures do not, however, prevent the child's use of a passport previously issued, particularly since there is no exit control system that would review such alerts at the point the child is boarding a plane or exiting the U.S.

A parent also asked whether the policy about seeking return has changed to become more restrictive and only be the U.S. objective if return is sought within a year of the child's abduction and the child has not adjusted in its new environment. CA/OCS/CI publications used to state that the Department will seek every child's return without discussing whether the removal occurred less than a year before the return is sought and whether the child has adjusted where he or she now lives. The actual language of the Hague Convention has not changed and thus neither have the conditions for seeking return. The Convention allows a judge to consider return even over a year after the child was removed to another country, though in reality the longer the child has been removed, the more chance that the child will establish social, scholastic and other ties in the new environment. Expeditious application for return and processing of the application remain highly desirable as they promote resolution of the case before the lapse of time allows the child to resettle.

Another parent suggested that more resources should be sought to allow the Office of Children's Issues to stay in more frequent contact with parents.

Another parent suggested that judges work in conjunction with one another, and perhaps form an international court to address these cases.

A number of parents wanted the return of abducted children linked to foreign aid, meaning that countries that do not cooperate in returning abducted children should not expect to receive U.S. government financial assistance. This solution would actually need Congressional action. Parents believed that such economic results might get foreign countries to help enforce U.S. courts orders.

The group was asked whether they thought that bilateral discussions with countries, particularly those countries that are not party to the Hague Convention, should continue. One parent was skeptical about the concrete results out of such talks, using the analogy of years of international efforts to "talk" to Saddam Hussein that have not achieved the desired results.

One parent suggested that instead of bilateral discussions, parents should use a U.S. issued court order or arrest warrant and go to a foreign country where an abducted child is located and bring the child back. Mary Helen Carlson noted that even with a U.S. arrest warrant, a parent cannot go and just take a child from another country. U.S. law enforcement officers do not have jurisdiction to act in foreign countries without the cooperation and consent of local authorities.

Another parent felt that in some situations, obtaining a federal warrant against the abductor can give you better access to other tools in the fight to get children returned. The possibility of getting an abductor's assets frozen or an Interpol notice circulated was considered a good thing, though arresting or punishing the abductor will not guarantee the return of a child. Parents were encouraged to attend the "TOOLS" breakout discussion group's next session to learn more about criminal procedural tools.

The question was raised of how parents feel about negotiation of bilateral child support enforcement orders. The U.S. does not have Federal enforcement of child support orders. There was consensus that any child support order should be to assist a left-behind parent, not a taking parent. Courts should be given the ability to refuse to grant child support or refuse to order enforcement of child support payments to a parent abroad if the requesting foreign government is not cooperating to enforce U.S. court orders.

Another idea for getting results concerned taking action against the family of the abductor when the taking parent refuses to cooperate. Targeting the family with criminal charges or other punitive action can get results.

Dianne Andruch noted that the Department is looking at new ways that would make it harder for abductors and those that support them to receive U.S. visas unless an abducted child is returned. As much as people love to hate us, other countries appreciate the contact and business, employment, social and other opportunities presented by being able to travel to the United States.

One parent who had been denied access wanted help in educating abducted children about the continued interest of the left-behind parent and maintaining contact. Children cut off from their American parent in a foreign environment can be convinced that they are no longer American citizens and that their U.S. parent has lost interest in their welfare. Such children do not automatically lose their U.S. citizenship and should be contacted to underline that fact. The suggestion was made that the U.S. Embassy could send a letter to the child at a certain point to provide citizenship information and confirm their ability to apply for a U.S. passport or seek information and assistance from their Embassy.

A parent noted that combating terrorism and prosecuting alleged terrorists is given a high priority. Under the Patriot Act, there may be room for interpretation of international child abduction as a terrorist act. Could this be used to return abducted children? Kidnapping of adults is often viewed as a terrorist act, why not kidnapping of children?

Parents like the suggestion of adding information on how a country implements the Hague Convention, or how countries not party to the Hague respond to child abduction cases, in the State Department's Country Specific Information.

In the second session, several parents wondered whether foreign governments know about the nature and extent of all of the different cases of abduction and denial of access to U.S. parents. All U.S. officials dealing with countries where U.S. abducted children are should know about the cases, particularly political officers who work the full spectrum of bilateral issues.

On the issue of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, several parents were concerned that the U.S. had not ratified the Convention. Mary Helen Carlson noted that the U.S. had signed the Convention but has not ratified it. Currently the U.S. is the only country that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Carlson further explained that, though the U.S. is not a party to the Convention, in practice, the U.S. upholds more of the protections afforded to children by the Convention than most other countries. Several parents recommended that the U.S.Government use the argument in bilateral demarches and discussions that countries should uphold their responsibilities under the U.N. Convention. The Convention states that children have the right to have meaningful contact with both of their parents. Countries where access and visitation ruling are not enforced allow the parent with actual physical custody to dictate when and if a child will see or hear from his or her foreign parent. Such countries' failures to live up to the Convention should be publicized and there should be a penalty attached to noncompliance with international convention obligations.

Several parents were deeply concerned about Parent Alienation Syndrome. They fear that their children are susceptible to efforts to separate them permanently by the parent or guardian in the foreign country who convinces the child of their disinterest or improper behavior. The left-behind parent is not in a position to refute and dispel such ideas if he or she has no access to the child. The widespread use of new communications technologies like video conference calls should be examined as an additional means for maintaining contact between parent and child.

Parent Suggestions – Policy Issues

• How does State Department balance interests -- reconcile need to "make nice" with other countries to achieve common goals vs. demand to return children?
• Ask government officials how they would react if they lost all contact with their children for years on end. Make them understand the trauma and need for action.
• This (abduction) is criminal! We are the only country using State Department. Should be Department of Justice with primary role in international parental child abduction cases.
• Relations to other countries are independent of child abduction cases (but should not be).
• U.S. should ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.
• Children should have access to and meaningful involvement in their lives from both parents per U.N. Rights of the Child.
  
• Access should be bare minimum a left-behind parent can expect.
• Educate abducted children about their right to maintain U.S. citizenship and obtain a U.S. passport. Contact children at 18 to inform them of citizenship rights.
• Be careful regarding child support. Ordered only by country of left-behind parent.. Do not let taking parents benefit.
• Negotiation/discussion at senior levels on abduction should occur every week not every two years.
• International parental child abduction should be as important as terrorism.
• Can the Patriot Act be used (section that might be interpreted to define child abduction as an act of terrorism)?
• If we can pressure countries to go to war, why don't we place same pressure to return/have access to children?
• Are negotiations based on regulation, policy, or Emily Post?
• Why are adults who are abducted treated differently than children?
• No consequence for non-compliance is a problem.
• Foreign affairs ministries don't influence judicial systems. Work with countries to establish procedures.
• Prevent abducted child from sponsoring the immigration to the U.S. of a/their taking parent. Could do more harm than good.
• Need more resources!

Parent Suggestions on Bilateral Strategy

• Make foreign governments and USG employees who work with foreign governments aware of the cases.
• Develop country-specific strategies.
• Develop case-specific strategies.
• Let countries know that if they want the U.S.Government involved in their issues/interests, they need to return our children.
• Can the ambassador meet and discuss return of children? Want more senior level government involvement.
• State Department should be more assertive about bringing to government attention obligations and rights under different international conventions on children and abduction.
• State Department and parents might use U.N. reports to pressure countries, i.e., if Germany is not compliant with U.N. Convention on Rights of the Child re: access. Use U.N. Human Rights Committee.
• Ensure political officers and political appointees stay involved and engaged.
• $10 million/child/year -- cut off foreign aid and/or link reduction in aid to children not returned.
• Cut off grant money if children not returned/access denied -- "money talks".

Child support enforcement agreements should not be used against Left Behind Parents.

THE HAGUE CONVENTION: HOW IT WORKS

Presenter/facilitator:
Barbara Greig, CA/OCS/CI
Damon Terrill, Office of the Legal Advisor, Department of State

This group examined the Hague Convention as a remedy for recovering abducted children. The Convention is in force between the United States and 52 treaty partners. Approximately 15 additional countries have acceded to the Convention but have not yet been accepted as partners by the United States. Party nations agree that the best place to resolve custodial issues is in the country of the child’s “habitual residence.” Therefore it involves jurisdiction and not custody. The citizenship of the abducted child and parents is not an issue. The efficient and consistent application of the Hague denies the taking parent any benefits from abducting the child.

Each party country determines how it will fulfill its treaty obligations. An official government entity is designated as the Central Authority. Most Central Authorities are located within the Department of Justice; others are in Foreign Affairs, Social Welfare, etc. Some Central Authorities have a purely administrative function; others assume a legal role in presenting Hague applications to courts.

Under Article 3, 5 conditions must be met. (1) The treaty must be in force between the two countries. (2) The child must be under the age of 16. (3) The child must have been “habitually resident” in the applicant’s country prior to removal/retention. (4) The left-behind parent must have had some form of custodial rights at the time of removal/retention. (5) The left-behind parent must have been exercising those rights or would have but for the removal/retention.

The exceptions to a return order include (1) Under Article 12(a), if the removal/retention occurred more than a year before, the court may find the child is “resettled.” (2) Under Article 13(a), the court can find that the left-behind parent acquiesced to the removal/retention. (3) Under Article 13(b), the court can find that the child objects to return and is of sufficient age and maturity to make such a decision. (4) Under Article 13(b), the court can find that the return of the child would cause grave physical and/or psychological harm to the child.

Some of the problems we have encountered with the Hague over the past years include a lack of uniformity in interpreting the treaty; countries that lack the ability to locate missing children; the judiciary is either uneducated about the Hague or chooses to ignore it; the judiciary is subject to political/monetary influence; there are nationalistic, cultural, religious and/or gender biases in the court system; countries have no means by which to enforce civil judgments; if legal services are not provided, they can be prohibitively expensive; undertakings (conditions for return) can cause hardship for left-behind parents; and the access portion (Article 21) of the treaty is open to interpretation.

Parents’ Suggestions and Comments:

• Foreign country court ignores evidence --suggested that a judge from each country should hear the case, in order to provide greater neutrality.
• The time involved in processing applications and obtaining judgments can be very lengthy, especially in some countries.
• In some countries, the left-behind parent’s legal representative is mandated by the foreign government.
• Foreign courts use inconsistency to their advantage.
• Neutral court to make decision?
• An Embassy representative should attend the hearing (interpreter). Embassy representatives should also attend non-Hague custody hearings at the request of a left-behind parent.
• Parents should have prompt access to their children.
• Testimony of consular officer in foreign court.
• Proof of domestic violence prior to removal/retention should be considered.
• Appeals of return orders should be based on law, not emotion.
• There should be consistent guidelines on what is acceptable and credible evidence of claims.
• Lack of consistency regarding one-year “resettlement” – does the one year start when the child is abducted or when the child is located?
• One year -- courts should consider length of time required to locate child.
• Copies of foreign court orders should be made available with English translations.
• Countries should limit number of courts that hear Hague cases -- advanced training for judges.
• Individual courts should comply with the Convention and publish their decisions.
• Time lines ignored (cases are not handled expeditiously).
• Access provisions of treaty are ignored.
• Extra push by DOS needed to make countries fulfill their treaty obligations.
• Corrupt systems (bribery)
• Cannot pay off everyone; legal fees can be exorbitant.
• Educate U.S. judiciary regarding prevention measures and about Hague.
• Put more "teeth" into Convention; there should be penalties for countries who don’t comply.
• Compliance report should be widely published.
• Update DOS website for parents and U.S. judiciary. (Australia and New Zealand websites are good examples.) The Website could include:
  • Success stories.
  • Decisions not in spirit of Convention.
  • Access decisions
• There should be measures to ensure the safety of the child during Hague proceedings and eliminate the risk of further flight.
• Access to the child should be available during Hague proceedings.
• FCA demands accountability but gives none in return.
• Insufficient notification of foreign proceedings.
• Do we gain more from the Hague than we lose?

Let parents know when there is any official interaction with foreign government regarding their cases.

Go to Speakers' Remarks from the 2/24/2003 Townhall Meeting
Go to International Parental Child Abduction Page