[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REVIEWING INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 10, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-173
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,
or http://http://www.govinfo.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
33-668 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
PAUL COOK, California LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
RON DeSANTIS, Florida [until 9/10/ JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
18] deg. ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
TED S. YOHO, Florida DINA TITUS, Nevada
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois NORMA J. TORRES, California
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
Wisconsin TED LIEU, California
ANN WAGNER, Missouri
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
VACANT
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and
International Organizations
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina KAREN BASS, California
DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York AMI BERA, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
Wisconsin THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. Jeffery Morehouse, executive director, Bring Abducted
Children Home.................................................. 5
Mr. Juan Garaicoa, father of two children abducted to Ecuador.... 24
Ms. Michelle Littleton, mother of three children abducted to
Lebanon........................................................ 39
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Mr. Jeffery Morehouse: Prepared statement........................ 14
Mr. Juan Garaicoa: Prepared statement............................ 31
Ms. Michelle Littleton: Prepared statement....................... 41
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 56
Hearing minutes.................................................. 57
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on
Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International
Organizations: Statements submitted for the record............. 58
REVIEWING INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION
----------
MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
Global Human Rights, and International Organizations,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Smith. The committee will come to order.
First of all, let me begin by thanking all of you for
joining us this afternoon to discuss the continuing crisis of
international parental child abduction and how the Trump
administration can and must use current law, especially the
tools embedded in the Goldman Act, to more aggressively bring
children home to their families.
I especially want to thank the brave left-behind parents in
this room, and hundreds of others who are here in spirit, for
tenaciously struggling to recover their child or children from
an abduction.
The deleterious physical and psychological impact on
abducted children, including parental alienation, coupled with
the pain and agony endured by a left-behind parent from a
forced, illegal, and inhumane abduction, demands more effective
U.S. Government action.
Today we will hear from three extraordinary parents who
have left no stone unturned in a noble quest of bringing their
kids home. Out of deep love and concern for the safety and
well-being of their children, all three parents--Jeffery
Morehouse, Juan Garaicoa, and Michelle Littleton--continue to
strive and to hope and to believe.
All three parents, and far too many others like them, daily
endure the absolute nightmare of having had their beloved
children kidnapped and taken to a foreign land. We can and we
must do better.
As Jeffery Morehouse notes in his testimony, to date there
have been more than 400 U.S. children kidnapped to Japan since
1994. To date, the Government of Japan has not returned a
single American child to an American parent.
He notes that the last time that he hugged his son, ``the
last time I heard his voice was Father's Day 2010. I love you,
Mochi, wherever you are,'' he said. ``Our kidnapped children's
true voices,'' he goes on, ``have been silenced.'' And he
speaks on behalf of many other left-behind parents and that
they need to be heard.
Child abduction is child abuse and it continues to plague
thousands of families across the United States. Each year more
than 450 new children are abducted, adding to the 11,000
children who were abducted internationally between 2008 and
2017.
The good news: Since Congress adopted legislation that I
wrote in 2014, the Sean and David Goldman International Child
Abduction Prevention and Return Act, Public Law 113-150, we
have seen a huge reduction in the number of new abductions each
year. In fact, 450 is half the number of just 10 years ago.
According to the State Department's Annual Report on
International Child Abductions for 2018, the State Department's
Prevention Team has been working with the Department of
Homeland Security, as directed by the Goldman Act, to protect
vulnerable children from abduction. Last year, 210 very high-
risk children were enrolled in the DHS prevention program, an
increase of 60 percent over 2016.
We have also seen some high profile Federal criminal
prosecutions of taking parents and their accomplices, such as
the prosecution and conviction of Carlos Guimaraes and his wife
Jemima for assisting with the kidnapping of their grandson Nico
Brann to Brazil 5 years ago.
These prosecution efforts of the DOJ and FBI are incredibly
important, not only for holding the perpetrators accountable
and for driving home the seriousness of international child
abduction, but also for deterring future abductions.
Ask anyone who works in the field or any left-behind parent
and they will tell you that international child abductions are
very difficult to resolve, even with the 77 countries that have
partnered with the United States in the Hague Convention on the
Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Two hundred and
fifteen children came home last year. Every return is a hard
won celebration and should not be minimized.
But every case resolved without return must be scrutinized
and aggressively so; 197 cases were closed without return. Did
the parent agree to let the child stay abroad because they
could not afford the financial or emotional cost of fighting in
a foreign court for years on end? Did the foreign court
expansively read the Hague Convention exceptions to return so
that living in an apartment counted as a ``grave risk of
harm,'' such as Japan's courts held in the Cook family case,
which is absurd?
The Hague Convention was intended to minimize trauma to
children and left-behind parents, returning children to their
home country for custody determinations and to do so quickly.
But it is regularly flouted without consequence to the
violating country.
Tragically the State Department has persistently refused--
and this is the bad news--persistently refused the use of
return tools that are in the Goldman Act as envisioned by
Congress to enforce the Hague Convention in both Hague and non-
Hague countries and to move non-Hague countries to bilateral
resolution agreements with the United States.
A 42 percent return rate of American children within 2
years of abduction--and that is the rate--cries out for
immediate and systemic improvement. We can and we must do
better.
The Goldman Act of course empowers the Secretary of State
with significant sanctions, including the authority to
withdraw, limit, or suspend U.S. development, security, or
economic support assistance; to delay or cancel one or more
bilateral working official or state visits; to extradite the
taking parent, which puts pressure on the parents to return the
child; to come up with their own actions that would have a
positive effect; and many other prescribed actions that are in
the Goldman Act.
To my knowledge, extradition has been used once and the
other options not at all. That has got to change.
At a Senate hearing April 24 of this year, Assistant
Secretary of the Bureau of Consular Affairs Carl Risch
testified that the State Department ``considers all the tools
the Goldman Act provides for the most effective way to make
progress with particular countries.''
However, more than 2,000 cases after the Goldman Act was
signed into law, the State Department has apparently never
found a single case where those tools would be helpful, not
even in the cases where the foreign courts had decided on
return, but just failed to enforce those orders.
Devon Davenport has won all 24 appeals over the last 9
years for return of his daughter Nadia from Brazil--and yet she
is still not home. Dr. Brann has been waiting for 5 years for
the return of his son Nico from Brazil.
We have 100 American children abducted to India with almost
no hope of return without the United States choosing to take
real action. And again, those actions are in our law, they are
in the Goldman Act. Use them, Mr. President. We could also
lower the number of visas available to Indian citizens until
abducted children are returned, another opportunity to get this
right.
While Japan was finally named a noncompliant country by the
Trump administration in this year's annual report, after having
just about nothing done in the previous administration on
Japan, Japan is still not held accountable for the dozens of
cases that were pending before it signed the Hague Convention
in 2014. And Jeffery will talk about that in his testimony.
But what a dark day that was. They signed the Hague
Convention, which maybe opens up the door to some cases from
then on, but all the cases that preceded ratification of the
Hague Convention are grandfathered out. What a gross injustice.
Marine Corps Sergeant Michael Elias suffered the abduction
of his two children to Japan. In 2008, after courts in New
Jersey decreed shared custody and no travel for the children,
Japan gave the children replacement passports to facilitate the
abduction. Sergeant Elias has not been able to speak to his
children in 10 years.
I actually traveled with my chief of staff to Japan to
raise his and other cases, and I was shocked, frankly, about
what we were not doing to help this combat war veteran at least
see his children and hopefully to bring his children home.
I believe the Trump administration can and must do better
with the backing of the Hague Convention, bilateral agreements,
and requests for cooperation in return of abducted children,
and with the actions described in the Goldman Act. We can and
we must do better. The time is now. Delay is denial.
And for these three parents and so many others like them,
the agony is every day, every day, and then every day. And we
need to change that and we can change it with our law.
I would like to yield to Mr. Garrett for such time as he
may consume.
Mr. Garrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to waive
and reserve time later.
Ms. Smith. Thank you very much.
I would like to now yield to the gentleman, Mr. Posey.
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith, for
recognizing the problem that we have today and for holding this
important hearing and for allowing me to join you in your
discussion and your questions.
I am proud to represent Michelle Littlejohn, one of the
three witnesses here today. Ms. Littlejohn's three beautiful
children, two daughters and a son, Ascila, Leilah, and Yousef,
were tragically abducted by her former husband to Lebanon
nearly 2 years ago. She has worked tirelessly to litigate their
return in Lebanese courts and has won remarkable, landmark
decisions that have essentially established her case to return
the children. Yet she waits.
I must defer to her with great respect to tell you the
entire store and commend her for the brave struggle. Ms.
Littleton's testimony and that of the other witnesses here
today suggest that we need to look, as you said, more closely
at ways to improve our Government's support of parents who face
abductions and retentions.
As you mentioned so eloquently in your opening statement,
Mr. Chairman, Congress passed the Goldman Act to empower the
State Department with tools or sanctions to discipline
countries who enable abductions and retentions.
I understand that you invited the State Department to
participate with us today, and I must say that I am very
disappointed that we don't have any State Department officials
here today to testify on how we can work together to strengthen
our support for the brave parents, like Ms. Littleton.
I follow the travels and the work of our Secretary of
State, who clearly, obviously, gives that job absolute 100
percent. And I just can't tell you how I am disappointed that
none of the other 60,000-plus employees of the doggone
Department could not find time to show up today and participate
in this important hearing that you have called. I am very
disappointed and maybe I may bring that to the attention of the
Secretary.
These are doubtless difficult circumstances when a child
abduction intersects with our foreign relations, but we must
try to do better.
And again, Chairman Smith, I want to thank you for holding
this important hearing and allowing me to participate. I yield.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
I would like to now introduce our three outstanding
witnesses, noble parents who are fighting for their children,
beginning with Jeffery Morehouse, who is the executive director
of Bring Abducted Children Home, or BAC Home, a nonprofit
organization dedicated to the immediate return of
internationally abducted children being wrongfully detained in
Japan.
Bring Abducted Children Home strives to end Japan's human
rights violation of denying children unfettered access to both
parents and works to increase public awareness through
community outreach on international parental child abduction.
His son, Mochi, remains kidnapped in Japan, despite Mr.
Morehouse's U.S. Sole custodial order being recognized by the
courts in Japan in both 2014 and 2017. He is also a founding
partner in the Coalition to End International Parental Child
Abduction and the G7 Kidnapped to Japan Reunification Project.
We will then hear from Juan Garaicoa, who is the father of
two boys, Mateo and Martin, who were abducted to Ecuador in
August 2016. Mr. Garaicoa decided to start his own independent
financial advisory practice in 2004, the year Mateo was born.
His independent financial advisory practice allowed him to
fulfill his commitment to spend more time with his children.
Previously he worked for a select number of investment banks in
New York and Miami. And he is here today to make that appeal
for his two children, and we are grateful he is here.
Then we will here from Michelle Littleton, who is the
mother of three children, Ascila, Leilah, and Yousef, who were
abducted to Lebanon on January 4 of 2017. After her children's
abduction, Ms. Littleton moved from California to Florida to be
with her family.
She was hired as an administrative assistant to the
director for launch operations at Cape Canaveral Air Force
Station as a contract hire for United Launch Alliance. Ms.
Littleton was also selected as an Ambassador to the United
States Launch Alliance.
Previous to her current position, she worked at a
commercial real estate company, but put her real estate career
on hold in order to pursue and try to bring back her children.
Ms. Littleton awaits the day when she is reunited, and has
rooms furnished and decorated in her home on Merritt Island in
Florida for the day when they come home.
Mr. Morehouse, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF MR. JEFFERY MOREHOUSE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BRING
ABDUCTED CHILDREN HOME
Mr. Morehouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and to the
committee, for inviting me here to share my expertise and my
personal experience on the ongoing crisis and crime of
international parental child abduction in Japan.
Japan is internationally known as a black hole for child
abduction. To date, as you mentioned, there have been more than
400 U.S. children kidnapped to Japan since 1994, and the
Government of Japan has not returned a single American child to
an American parent.
Over the years, many Japanese citizens and officials have
shared with me that they are deeply ashamed of these abductions
and need help from the U.S. and other countries to change it.
They have asked for continued public, foreign pressure as it
gives them the support needed internally to uproot this cabal
of resistance in Japan that continues to corrupt the family
court system there.
This has revealed itself in what is called the Continuity
Principle, or simply put, judges and attorneys representing
abductions and abductors, and they manipulate the best interest
of the child to rule that the child should remain alienated and
ignore how they ended up with the abducting parent.
When Japan acceded to the Hague Convention on the Civil
Aspects of International Parental Child Abduction on April 1,
2014, you, Mr. Chairman, joined us as we met with the Japanese
Ambassador and officials at the Embassy to discuss their plans
for implementation. And I remember walking out of that meeting,
knowing that our worst fears had been realized. They had no
real plan to uphold the spirit and the intent of the Hague
Abduction Convention. It was all misdirection, all smoke and
mirrors. What we foresaw then remains true today.
Under Article 21, and I am quoting here, it says,
``The Central Authorities are bound . . . to promote
the peaceful enjoyment of access rights and the
fulfillment of any conditions to which the exercise of
those rights may be subject. The central authorities
shall take steps to remove, as far as possible, all
obstacles to exercise such rights.''
In the first known case to pursue Hague access rights in
the Japanese courts, Canadian Henrik Teton requested interim
access to his children and was ignored by the court. The judge
refused to provide his name, therefore making accountability in
these rulings impossible. No observers, no Embassy officials
were allowed to witness the court proceedings.
Four and a half years ago, at the very moment Japan acceded
to the Hague Abduction Convention, parents joined Bring
Abducted Children Home to hand deliver 30 Article 21 Access
applications. Hague was supposed to be an efficient path to see
our children again. We were told at that time we must give
Japan time, we must wait and see.
Well, we have waited and we have seen. Of those 30 cases,
three parents reported receiving one Skype session with their
children and one reported three sessions before the kidnapping
parents cut them off entirely. None of these parents have
received true unfettered access to their kidnapped children.
When I personally filed for access under Article 21, my ex-
wife responded by filing a new motion for custody in Japan,
citing my Hague application and weaponizing it against me. I
had to put my application on hold for 3 years. After winning my
case in Japan in 2017 and attempting to restart efforts for
access, she has been nonresponsive.
In consultation with the Japanese Central Authority, the
Office of Children's Issues is again encouraging me to file an
Article 21 motion in the Japanese courts. This is grossly
flawed. As I will state later in my testimony, Japan now admits
that all the power to comply with court rulings rests with the
kidnapper.
Japan's implementation of the Hague Abduction Convention is
an abysmal failure. Hague return orders have failed to be
enforced time and again, although it states under Article 7,
and I will quote again, ``Central Authorities shall cooperate
with each other and promote cooperation amongst the competent
authorities in the respective states to secure the prompt
return of children.'' The prompt return of children. It doesn't
state the optional return of children.
Japan fails miserably here, too. The enforcement of the
return orders fails every time, unless the kidnapping parent
willingly complies. In Japan an enforcement involves an
official going to the home and asking for the children to come
out while the kidnapping parent remains inside prompting them
to stay and holding all power over those children.
For James Cook, as the chairman mentioned, who testified to
this subcommittee in April, Japan's courts overturned the
return order because Mr. Cook had moved into an apartment and
had to share a bedroom with his sibling after the enormous
legal bills incurred from years of fighting in the Japanese
courts. He took his case all the way to the Supreme Court of
Japan and the Hague Convention failed again there.
Laws and treaties are being ignored. Mr. Cook's children
remain abducted, with the kidnapping parent. This is just
another example of Japan's Continuity Principle at work and it
crushes any hope of reuniting with our kidnapped children.
According to my discussion with the State Department, Mr.
Cook's case would now be classified as a judicial resolution
under their interpretation of the Goldman Act. In other words,
Japan gets rewarded for finding a way to avoid returning
children that are kidnapped from the United States.
Another example of Japan's systemic failure to return
kidnapped children involves two Japanese parents that were
living in the United States. I point this out because it is the
second time that a case involving two Japanese parents received
extrajudicial effort that I have not yet seen in cases
involving a non-Japanese parents.
Like in the Oregon case that ended in 2016, the enforcement
of the Hague return order failed. In this new instance, a
Japanese form of habeas corpus petition was filed in the Nagoya
High Court, but it was not awarded.
So the father appealed to the Supreme Court in Japan, which
issued a ruling in March 2018, and they wrote four significant
points in that: The child was found to be unduly controlled and
influenced by the mother. The second point, therefore the
child's statement was not considered to be objective. The
Supreme Court in Japan determined that the retention of the
child was clearly illegal.
And then the Japan Supreme Court remanded the case back to
the Nagoya High Court, the lower court. In effect, the Supreme
Court issued an opinion, but they didn't issue a return based
on habeas corpus which evolved out of this failed Hague
process.
Now, in July 2018 the Nagoya High Court issued a new ruling
in the case. This time the child was ordered returned, but the
mother and the child immediately fled the court. It can be
assumed that the Government of Japan, the courts, her
attorneys, and the police know exactly where the mother and the
child are, but the enforcement of the return order remains to
be executed.
In 2014, the Goldman Act was signed into law in part to
create accountability for countries like Japan that fail to
return our kidnapped American children. Multiple tools were
provided--a demarche; an official public statement; a public
condemnation, denial, or cancellation of official meetings or
state visits; the withdrawal, limitation, or suspension of U.S.
assistance; and a formal request to extradite the kidnapping
parent.
To date, only demarches have been issued. All other tools
have been ignored, while we still don't have a single case of
the Government of Japan returning an American child to an
American parent.
In April, the Senate Judiciary Committee took this topic up
at a hearing. Senator Booker asked, and I will quote, ``Are we
using the tool in the Goldman Act, beyond demarches?''
Assistant Secretary Carl Risch of Consular Affairs responded,
``Not to my knowledge.''
Chairman Grassley inquired, ``How many demarches have been
issued since the passage of the Goldman Act?'' Mr. Risch:
``There have been many, but we feel that type of diplomatic
engagement is the key to success in these cases.''
Senator Blumenthal probed, ``Have you used any other
tools?'' Mr. Risch concedes they have not.
In response to the committee's follow-up questions for the
record, Assistant Secretary Risch responded that, from 2008 to
2015, 9,127 children were kidnapped and only 3,992 were
returned. There was no substantial change in the percentage in
those 8 years. Some years it went up a few points, some years
it went down.
If returning kidnapped children home to the United States
as the key measure of success--and it is--that would point to a
failure in strategy, not success.
This subcommittee in April also held a hearing that
examined the lack of use of the tools. And at the hearing,
Chairman Smith, you noted that since 2014 we have seen a
decrease in the number of new abductions, but not an increase
in the percentage of returns, and you noted that in your
opening statement as well.
Special Advisor for Children's Issues Suzanne Lawrence
testified, and I will quote from her,
``We do consider all the tools we have at our disposal,
and we do that with our interagency partners, and try
to use the best tool at the best moment on a case-by-
case basis. We consider them when we think they will be
effective.''
Congresswoman Jayapal followed up,
``What would move the threshold in order to use those
tools? What can we tell our families about what we are
going to do differently than we have been doing now?''
Ms. Lawrence replied,
``I don't have a specific answer for you on what the
threshold is.''
Congressman Harris commented,
``Is it going to take literally an act of Congress and
an appropriations bill to get you ramped up through the
escalating sanctions that can occur in some of these
countries that the State Department has been unwilling
to pursue?''
And Chairman Smith, you hit it right on the mark:
``Sanctions work. If Japan doesn't get it through your
persuasion--and I thank you for trying so hard--it is
time to lower the boom!''
And the State Department's response to those hearings was
to ignore Congress' call to use the tools.
A comprehensive review of all four actions reports from
2015 to 2018 shows a very bleak pattern. Many of these
countries cited are repeat offenders, yet no other tools, other
than a demarche, was utilized. Japan had three demarches in
2017 alone. In fact, other tools were only mentioned one time.
The 2018 actions report claimed, the Department wrote,
``The Department is considering the use of further tools under
the Act if Japan continues its pattern of noncompliance in
failing to promptly enforce Convention court orders.''
In an open session of the Diet in Japan in early 2017 the
Japanese Foreign Minister at the time, Fumio Kishida, declared
there is not a single example of sanctions under the Goldman
Act. He called them out. He called the State Department's
bluff.
Through multiple hearings in the House and the Senate, the
State Department has rejected your calls, Congress' calls, to
use the tools. Clearly, demarches, raising IPCA cases with
foreign government officials, and empty threats are not
bringing children home.
And what are these demarches? What is in them? Does anyone
really know? I am still waiting for a response to a FOIA
request that our organization submitted in February.
What is it going to take beyond demarches? When are the
interests of American children that have been kidnapped going
to be put first? And when will decisive efforts be made to
bring abducted children home?
Based on multiple discussions with State, it is clear that
Japan anticipated being cited under the Goldman Act in 2018
starting at least 6 months in advance. There was a demarche in
November 2017 and December. Japan knew what was coming and they
were preparing to spin their way out of it.
On May 15, 2018, as Japan was about to be cited for
international parental child abduction by the United States,
they held a public seminar at the House of Culture in Japan in
Paris, co-organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan
and the Japan Federation of Bar Associations. In an audio
recording of this event from inside we hear participants being
educated about the Hague Abduction Convention. They are taught
how to prevent having their children returned to France, should
they be taken without consent to live in Japan. More simply
put, the organizers lay out how to abduct to Japan and get away
with it.
By creating a seminar that advised potential abductors how
to circumvent a Hague return order, the Government of Japan has
exhibited a shocking and blatant disregard for this
international agreement. When they were exposed and confronted
by French Senator Richard Yung, Japan's Ministry of Foreign
Affairs tried to deflect it as a rogue act by a presenter they
invited.
Now, if that were true, somebody from the Japanese
Government staff would have immediately interrupted at the
seminar and disavowed their government of this. They would have
denounced it right then and there. They didn't do that. Because
it wasn't a rogue act. It was intentional. The Government of
Japan is a shameless co-conspirator.
I will note that seminars continue to be held and there is
little reason to believe that the content has changed. There
was one scheduled in London and I believe there was another one
scheduled in New York.
In June of this year, just after Japan was cited by the
United States, their press reported potential draft legislation
to purportedly address the child abduction issue. This was an
attempt to change the narrative. It noted that there is nothing
under Japan's legal system to deal with parents who refuse to
hand over their children in defiance of a court order.
The proposal in an interim report considered fining parents
to encourage them to voluntarily comply. Now, fines and
voluntary compliance already exist and they haven't solved the
problem. Fines can be levied, they can be imposed, but they
have to be collected and substantial enough to bend a
kidnaper's will of defiance. That is a very narrow and unique
set of circumstances. It is not a judicial or a legislative
reform.
As this potential draft limped along, in September it was
reported in the press the rules now call for giving more power
to enforcement officers and allowing handovers to take place in
the presence of parents with custodial rights, on condition
sufficient consideration is paid to the sentiment of the
children.
We have got to unpack this a little bit. It sounds good,
but there are two immediate problems with it.
First, a Hague case has to do with habitual residence, not
custodial rights of the child. There could be a parent seeking
a return order that might not have sole custody or the
recognition of being the custodial parent in Japan or under
Japanese law. It is habitual residence that we are dealing
with.
Second, what is it that they mean by sufficient
consideration paid to the sentiment of the children? It is
another loophole. What is the sentiment of a child going to be
after they have been alienated for months or years? They are
going to be filled with confusion, fear, anger, anxiety, all
directed at the parent who is here to take them home. Is this
``sufficient consideration'' going to dictate enforcement is
still abandoned because the child appears more accustomed to
living a life under duress?
These are subversive efforts to give the false impression
of progress in Japan. It is more smoke and mirrors.
Though the State Department has put great hope in Japan's
potential legislation, a recent discussion I have had with them
reveals that they were working on a draft from the summer, not
the current legislation--sorry, the current potential
legislation. It is not even a bill yet. The current version,
according to our partners, has gutted the bill and would be
completely ineffective if it is ever passed in a year or years
down the road.
So don't be misled by reports in the Japanese press and
from State Department meetings with the Government of Japan of
sweeping legislative changes to improve our kidnapping crisis.
Japan should not be rewarded with more time to fix problems
that were exposed years ago. Let the kudos come after our
kidnapped children are returned.
In May, my colleague and I met with Japanese Embassy
officials to try and better understand, is there any genuine
path for Japan to reunite parents with kidnapped children? The
Head of Chancery, which I think is essentially their number two
person there, Mr. Takuya Sasayama, was shockingly candid to us.
He said, ``Your access depends on the mother and the child's
wishes.''
In November the State Department met with officials in
Japan at the Japanese Central Authority to again raise cases of
American children kidnapped to Japan and the lack of progress
and failures in enforcement of judicial rulings.
Two weeks ago I received a comprehensive readout from the
Office of Children's Issues on this, and there were three
points I want to share with you. Japan acknowledged that, one,
if the parent refuses there are no repercussions for ignoring
an application for access, a return order, or a court order.
Two, enforcing a court order depends on the voluntary
cooperation of the kidnapping parent. And three, the kidnapping
parent knows this and they hold all the power.
Is this Japan's new tactic, admit the problem and blame the
kidnapper?
We need real solutions to the numerous clear-cut cases,
such as Naval Captain Paul Toland and Paul Wong. Though they
are both the only living parent, the grandparents in Japan are
holding their daughters from them.
There are cases like Randy Collins, whose ex-wife was
ordered to surrender the child's passport to the court and
instead she kidnapped him.
Douglass Berg's children were kidnapped from their habitual
and legal residence in the United States in 2009, violating his
parental rights to access.
Marine Corps Sergeant Michael Elias' two children were
kidnapped to Japan after a U.S. court ordered no travel for
those children.
The list goes on and on, it is too far too long. All
children and families crushed by the Government of Japan's
unwillingness to uphold its moral, ethical, and treaty
obligations. There are thousands of cases within Japan that
must be remembered, too, in this process.
In my own case, I was granted sole custody of my son in the
State of Washington in May 2007. Three years later, on June 20,
2010, I dropped my son Mochi Atomu Imoto Morehouse off to begin
a weeklong visit with his mother. He was 6\1/2\ years old at
the time. This is where my nightmare began.
Six days later, I received a phone call that no parent ever
wants to receive. It was the police. My son, my ex-wife had
been reported missing. I knew immediately what had happened.
She had succeeded in what she had been planning all along. She
had kidnapped our son to Japan. At this moment my life had been
shattered.
I did everything I could to prevent this. There were
passport and travel restraints in place. I had a court order
that barred her from leaving the State of Washington with him.
The Seattle Consulate of Japan had denied her passport request
when she went there. And she simply went to the passport office
at the Portland Consulate of Japan, which issued her one, in
violation of Ministry of Foreign Affairs' own policy.
Over the years people have said to me things like, ``At
least you know he is safe with his mother.'' He might be
somewhere in Japan, but he is not safe. He is at risk. He has
been willingly and intentionally kidnapped to a foreign land,
with the intent of alienating him from me and everyone he
knows.
Imagine being a small child and your mother steals you away
to a foreign country and tells you your father doesn't want you
anymore or he is dead. Your whole life is now built on a
foundation of lies. This is not what a healthy, nurturing
parent does. It is child abuse.
In 2014, and again in 2017, I won another landmark ruling
in Japan: The court declared my U.S. sole custody order has
legal effect. My ex-wife has no legal custody rights in Japan,
none. They also cited her admission of illegal acts of passport
fraud and forgery.
There was no intent to offer justice, though. It was simply
the Continuity Principle at work again. It doesn't matter how a
child ends up with an abductor, Japan will not uphold laws and
treaties to return children to their rightful home.
In the end, the court refused to even reunite Mochi and me.
I don't even know where he is being held.
Our kidnapped children's true voices have been silenced.
They need to be heard. In the beginning of my most recent legal
battle in Japan, my son, 13 at the time, was asked by his
attorney, ``Do you ever think of your father?'' And he replied,
``Sometimes I dream of him at night,'' as he cried, telling
that lawyer.
The last time I spoke to my son, the last time I saw him,
was on Father's Day in 2010. I love you, Mochi, wherever you
are.
On behalf of the 66 children listed on the BAC Home Web
site and those who have all been rendered voiceless by their
abductors, for my fellow parents of internationally kidnapped
children here today and watching all over the world who feel
marginalized by the lack of active, engaged, transparent
assistance in recovering our loved ones, I implore Congress to
take strong, unified action toward Japan for its ongoing
refusal to return our kidnapped children.
For the past 2 years, Prime Minister Abe has spread it all
over the press how President Trump and the U.S. are going to
help Japan resolve the 1977 to 1983 kidnappings of 17 of their
citizens kidnapped to North Korea. I feel for those parents. I
understand their pain. It is our pain. And the U.S. should
help, it is the right thing to do.
President Trump ran on putting America first. Well, putting
America first means putting America's kidnapped children first
and bringing them home.
Prime Minister Abe, what about returning the 400-plus
American kids kidnapped to Japan since 1994? What about
returning Mochi? The Government of Japan throwing their arms up
in the air and saying it is up to the kidnapper is not
acceptable. The Government of Japan is complicit here.
Last week Secretary Pompeo said to the German Marshall Fund
in Brussels, ``When treaties are broken, violators must be
confronted and the treaties must be fixed or discarded. Words
should mean something.'' How will Japan be confronted?
In September the President addressed the United Nations and
declared, ``We are standing up for America and the American
people.'' Who is standing up for America's kidnapped children?
Words must be backed up with actions so that Japan will
recognize that enough is enough and the United States will not
tolerate the ongoing kidnapping and retention of our citizen
children.
In Vice President Pence's press statement from his November
trip to Japan, he stated to the Prime Minister that President
Trump has made a commitment to ``speed up the sale of defense
technology to Japan, and we are keeping that promise. Before
the end of the year we will deliver 10 F-35s to Japan and 6
more in 2019.''
I urge Congress to take immediate action while the
opportunity exists and block the sale of defense technology to
Japan until our kidnapped children are returned to us. They
have broken their treaty obligations.
It is necessary to stand up for the American people here.
Create this sanction. Please, stop the delivery of the F-35s.
Tell the Prime Minister it is not acceptable to continue to
hold my son Mochi Atomu Imoto Morehouse or any of the 400-plus
American children kidnapped and retained in Japan.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Morehouse follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Mr. Morehouse, thank you very much for that very
persuasive testimony on behalf of your son, as well as all the
other left-behind parents who are being, I believe, cruelly
mistreated by the Government of Japan. Thank you so much.
We will now here from Mr. Garaicoa.
STATEMENT OF MR. JUAN GARAICOA, FATHER OF TWO CHILDREN ABDUCTED
TO ECUADOR
Mr. Garaicoa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith, Members of Congress attending this hearing
today, on behalf of my two children, Mateo and Martin, I would
like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak here
at the United States Congress about international parental
abduction and the Goldman Act to return abducted American
children.
It has been well documented that international parental
abduction in most cases is not an act of love, but rather an
extreme form of child abuse. Children who are victims of
parental abduction usually have already gone through the pain
of their parents' separation or relationship breakdown.
Due to the unilateral decision of one of their parents,
these children then face the trauma of suddenly losing contact
with their mom or dad, the left-behind parent. Sadly, this is
precisely the case of my two boys, Mateo and Martin, who have
been deprived of any contact whatsoever with their dad for over
2 years now.
The effect of international parental abduction on children
can be catastrophic. An essay published by the American Bar
Association reports that, I quote:
``Children that are abducted for over 6 months
display severe psychological trauma and severe social
disorders that will likely not be resolved as long as
the child stays with his or her abductor.
``Although reintegration with family after many years
can be difficult for the child, this is often the only
chance the child will have to overcome the issues
caused by the abduction. Most children are found to
improve with the stability of being home with the
searching parent and attending therapy.''
The essay goes on and says:
``Children of long-term abductions report a feeling
of resentment toward both parents, the abducting parent
for stealing them and the left-behind parent for not
rescuing them sooner. And the longer a child is on the
run, the more emotional damage is done.
``Abducted children have a high rate of seeking out
their left-behind parent as teenagers and adults,
always seeking reunification, even after many years
apart. This suggests that returning a child to a left-
behind parent, even after many years, is often what is
best for the child and is what the child desires.''
Shortly after my children's abduction in August 2016, I
found much needed encouragement and hope from a press release
dated November 18, 2015, from former Secretary of State John
Kerry, and I am going to highlight three of that paragraphs of
that statement.
One, according to the press release,
``One of the Department of State's highest priorities
is the welfare of children involved in international
parental child abduction cases. And one of our most
effective tools for resolving these cases is the Hague
Abduction Convention.''
Two,
``In 2014 Congress passed the Sean and David Goldman
International Child Abduction Prevention and Return
Act, which gives the Department of State additional
tools to advocate for the return of the abducted
children.''
And three,
``There can be no safe haven for abductors.''
There can be no safe haven for abductors.
So I am going to focus my testimony on those three topics.
After fighting for over 2 years to secure the return of my
children from Ecuador, I have found the following conclusions.
One, The Hague Convention has not been an effective tool in
bringing back my children from Ecuador. Two, the State
Department has not enforced the tools provided by the Goldman
Act. And three, the abductor seems to have been successful in
finding a safe haven in Ecuador, a Hague partner country that
has been listed as noncompliant by the State Department for
several consecutive years.
Let me talk about the Hague Convention. In principle, the
legal remedy available through the Hague Convention of seeking
to have the abducted children returned to their habitual place
of residence aims to achieve a fair process.
However, in noncompliant countries reality is rather
different. As soon as the taking parent abducted my children to
Ecuador, she filed lawsuits for divorce, parental rights, and
child support, three different lawsuits. Classic case of forum
shopping. Henceforth, she has retained 13 attorneys from nine
different law firms in Ecuador in 2 years--13 attorneys from
nine different law firms in Ecuador--none in the U.S.
When we served her for divorce proceedings in the U.S., she
did not even bother to retain an attorney from the United
States. She did not appear in court and the court gave me full
custody and parental rights of my children. But she continued
on with the cases in Ecuador.
The 13 Ecuadorian attorneys were not retained randomly.
They are rather widely known for their political connections in
Ecuador and questionable, unethical, illegal practices. In
fact, the very first attorney, Monique Carriano (ph), chosen by
the doctor (ph) in Ecuador, is the wife of the person who was
acting at the time as the Minister of the Interior, the head of
police. My attorneys warned me in Ecuador: Don't come to
Ecuador, the wife of the Minister of the Interior has the
police at her disposal, don't even bother coming to Ecuador.
Subsequently, the taking mother retained the services of
two attorneys, Maria Elena Pascal (ph) and Maria Gracia Pasmen
(ph), who are known to be close friends with the person acting
then as President of the Judicial Council of Ecuador, who is
Gustavo Jalkh, who was recently ousted in Ecuador due to
corruption.
More recently, the taking parent retained the services of
another attorney, Antonio Costa (ph), who has the reputation in
Ecuador for allegedly engaging in bribing.
It is worth emphasizing that we have documented a fairly
large number of irregularities since day one in Ecuador. Let me
share some of those irregularities with you as they pertain to
the Hague Convention in Ecuador.
In the lower court hearing in April 2018 the judge,
Marianella Maldonado (ph), did not allow testimony from U.S.
independent professionals that were going to testify via video
conference. She just didn't allow them to testify. These
professionals included family therapists and the guardian ad
litem from Miami who were appointed by a Florida judge and they
had firsthand knowledge of our family dynamics as they
personally treated both parents and children for nearly 3
years.
The lower court judge did not allow the U.S. custody
evaluator, who traveled personally to attend this meeting in
Ecuador, this hearing in Ecuador. According to the U.S. custody
evaluator, who had previously testified in other Hague
proceedings in different countries, he found an extremely
hostile environment in the Ecuadorian court.
Most notably, the custody evaluator claimed, one, that the
judge demonstrated to be utterly biased; two, that his passport
was confiscated by the court until late in the afternoon, long
after his testimony had concluded; and three, that he was
threatened with prison in Ecuador for perjury. She thought he
was not coming back to the U.S.
The lower court judge did not recuse herself from hearing
this case despite the fact that she maintains an intimate
friendship with opposing counsel. Oddly enough, the judge and
the abductor's attorneys were displaying public messages on
Facebook of their mutual admiration and love precisely at the
time when we were waiting to hear the hearing date for the
hearing for the Hague case.
The lower court judge had a short private meeting with my
boys before the Hague hearing. Based on that meeting, she
denied the restitution of my children because, she said, that
was the desire of my boys.
In July 2018, the court of appeals, consisting of three
judges, did not allow an officer from the U.S. Embassy in
Ecuador to attend the hearing. We don't know why. An officer
from Ecuador's Central Authority was allowed to attend the
lower court hearing.
The panel of judges also met privately with my children,
but this time it was with the presence of an independent child
psychologist. After the hearing the panel of judges announced
that a final ruling would be issued in writing in the following
days. However, they did announce their decision to order
protective measures in favor of my children in the form of
therapies, which were necessary to reestablish the bond between
children with their father in view of the mother's strong
opposition.
The panel of judges several days later issued their ruling
in writing with protective measures included, denying
restitution with my children because they considered that my
children were well settled in Ecuador.
So notwithstanding having dismissed the reason that the
lower court judge had used to deny the restitution, the court
of appeals proceeded to deny the restitution of my children
based on the ``well settled'' exception.
It is abundantly clear that this ruling was made in
violation of Ecuador's Constitutional Court and the Hague
Convention. In 2017, Ecuador's Constitutional Court ruled that
the 1-year clock of the so-called ``well settled'' exception
stops when a petition is received by the Ecuadorian Central
Authority.
Interestingly enough, the lower court judge did mention in
her ruling that our petition had been filed within 1 year of
the abduction. However, this material fact was notoriously
missing from the court of appeals' ruling.
As we speak, my attorney in Ecuador is filing today an
appeal with the Constitutional Court in Ecuador.
With respect to the Goldman Act, in April 2018, when the
State Department published its latest Goldman annual report,
Ecuador was listed yet again as a country that demonstrated a
pattern of noncompliance. Subsequently, in July 2010, the State
Department published its report on the specific actions taken
against countries determined to have been engaged in a pattern
of noncompliance in their 2018 Annual Report on International
Child Abduction.
The following is the actual transcript of the full report
of actions taken by the State Department with respect to
Ecuador. It consists of three paragraphs.
One, the Department has reinforced efforts urging Ecuador
to improve its convention implementation. In January 2018, the
U.S. Central Authority increased the frequency of digital video
conferences with the Ecuadorian Central Authority, Ecuadorian
law enforcement officials, and the Public Defender's Office to
monthly meetings.
Two, the Department also plans to invite Ecuadorian
officials to participate in a new International Visitor
Leadership Program, scheduled for summer 2018. The
International Visitor Leadership Program will specifically
address the judicial components of processing and resolving
Convention abduction cases.
And, finally, the third paragraph of this action report
says, in June 2018, U.S. Embassy Quito delivered a demarche to
the Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Relations giving official
notice that the Department cited Ecuador for demonstrating a
pattern of noncompliance.
Period. That is it. Those are all the actions taken with
respect to Ecuador. And with all due respect, these actions,
from the point of view of a left-behind parent, do not seem
that impressive.
Despite the fact that the Goldman Act provides powerful
tools to the Department of State, it is evident that these
tools are not being used. The State Department's actions report
contains no sanctions whatsoever against Ecuador. In its action
report, the State Department states that ``diplomatic
engagement remains our most effective tool with all countries
to assist in resolving international parental child abduction
cases.''
I have no doubt, as a left-behind parent, the intentions
are good and that the desire is there, but enforcement is
clearly lacking. Soft diplomacy alone is not getting the job
done.
Finally, with respect to actions that might be helpful in
resolving the longstanding abduction of my children in Ecuador,
I would like to say the following. Critics of The Hague
Convention are of the opinion that the United States Government
is powerless in its attempts to coerce foreign countries to
obey or comply with The Hague Convention.
To maximize impact and bring back American children
abducted abroad, I personally believe that the U.S. Government
should start announcing and implementing sanctions at the macro
and micro level. This will send an unequivocal message to the
world that the United States of America means business when it
comes to bringing back its abducted children.
So, specifically, the executive branch should consider
taking the view that American children are being illegally
retained in foreign countries as a result of an act of
kidnapping. With implementation of economic sanctions,
noncompliant countries will soon start complying with The Hague
Convention and American children will finally be rescued and
protected from the harmful effects of international parental
abduction.
Economic sanctions may have a huge impact almost overnight.
The United States is Ecuador's principal trading partner.
Conversely, Ecuador is the 42nd-largest trading partner of the
U.S.
Currently, Ecuador benefits from tariff-free entry into the
United States for many of its products under the Generalized
System of Preference, GSP. In Ecuador, the annual renewal of
the GSP with the U.S. Is celebrated as a major victory. Under
the current President of Ecuador, Moreno, Ecuador is now
expressing interest not only in negotiating a new bilateral
investment treaty with the U.S. But also is exploring a
commercial trade agreement between both countries.
It is worth mentioning that Ecuador is currently facing a
fiscal deficit that is unsustainable, and the country lacks any
significant monetary policy maneuvering because its official
currency is the U.S. dollar.
From an economic point of view, the country that seems
powerless is Ecuador. If the U.S. Were to announce imminent
economic sanctions against Ecuador, the days of noncompliance
with the Hague treaty would be over.
Two, the Department of Justice should consider taking swift
and immediate action against abductors and accomplices.
Back in 2016, when my children were kidnapped by their
mother, I went personally to the FBI Miami field office, as I
had read that the FBI had jurisdiction under the International
Parental Kidnapping Act. A special agent, FBI agent, told me on
that occasion that the protocol is for the FBI not to get
involved until the Hague proceedings in the foreign country
were finalized.
More recently, another FBI agent, a special agent from
Miami, emphatically told me: Juan, I am telling you right now,
the taking mother won't be indicted unless you win the Hague
case in Ecuador. So the FBI is not going to take any action
unless I win the Hague case in Ecuador.
To my surprise, the FBI agent also told me that the
defenses under International Parental Kidnapping Act and The
Hague Convention were the same. My understanding, however, is
that International Parental Kidnapping Act has three defenses,
none of which is the welfare exception.
I would hope that the U.S. Law enforcement considers
international parental kidnapping as a violent crime against
innocent children and that the FBI becomes immediately involved
without having to wait for Hague cases to be resolved overseas.
Parental abductors usually count on a support network of
family and friends who aid in the kidnapping and/or its
continuation. These individuals should be investigated and
eventually be prosecuted if found liable for aiding and
abetting. These accomplices, whether they are family, friends,
or even family attorneys, should be criminally charged with
kidnapping and conspiracy to kidnap.
Prosecuting these individuals makes sense not only because
they will be held accountable for their crime but also because
law enforcement may obtain valuable testimony against the
abductor and/or other accomplices. More importantly, taking
action against accomplices could, in some cases, persuade the
abductor to voluntarily return children retained abroad.
And, number three, the Department of State should consider
implementing immigration sanctions against accomplices
irrespective of whether the abducted children were taken to a
Hague partner country or a non-Hague partner country.
The State Department can build a database with the names of
all the individuals involved in the illegal retention of
American children overseas, including family, friends,
attorneys, judges. Under this scenario, not only the abductor
and his or her accomplices but also corrupt attorneys and
judges could be properly interviewed when they visit an
American consulate next time for their visa renewal.
The problem in Ecuador is that corruption is endemic,
especially in the judicial system. And this problem does not
seem to be addressed by the State Department's action report on
parental abduction.
In Ecuador, judges are known for accepting bribes from
unscrupulous attorneys and their clients. At the moment, there
is no constitutional court in Ecuador because all of its
judges--nine judges--were recently ousted due to corruption.
Furthermore, a national court judge who was part of the
panel of judges that heard my Hague case is currently being
investigated in Ecuador after a journalist published a report
that her daughter has paid $1,000 in income taxes in the past
10 years--not $1,000 every year, but in the whole 10-year
period, $1,000 in income taxes--despite having inflows of
several million dollars in her bank account.
The possibility of denying U.S. Visas to these individuals
can become an extremely powerful tool in preventing and
resolving international parental abduction. While legislation
may be needed, please, Mr. Chairman and Members of Congress,
consider implementing immigration sanctions as soon as possible
against abductors and their accomplices irrespective of the
country of destination where the abductor has taken our
children.
I would like to finish my testimony by emphasizing that
every day counts. Every single day counts. Time does not erase
our memories or heal our pain. Time triggers an awful lot of
daily reminders. Time is of the essence, and now is the time to
bring our children home. The childhood of our children is in
your hands. The fate of our children is in your hands.
My special thanks to Michael for his extraordinary work at
the Office of Children's Issues and to Allison for her
unconditional support throughout this difficult journey.
And last but not least, I would like to send a brief
message to my children: I love you guys. I am here for you
always.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garaicoa follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Garaicoa, for that very powerful
testimony and your recommendations for additional actions. I
think they were very well-founded.
Ms. Littleton? I yield such time as you may consume.
STATEMENT OF MS. MICHELLE LITTLETON, MOTHER OF THREE CHILDREN
ABDUCTED TO LEBANON
Ms. Littleton. Chairman Chris Smith, Congressman Bill
Posey, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you
for holding this important and urgent hearing on international
child abduction.
My name is Michelle Littleton, and my three beautiful
children--Ascila, Leilah, and Yousef--were kidnapped from their
hometown of Mission Viejo, California, by their father, Mazen
Fawzi Matar, on January the 4th, 2017.
It was the middle of the school year on what was supposed
to be a 10-day vacation over Christmas break. While most
children were returning to school, my children were boarding a
plane and being kidnapped to war-torn Lebanon, where dozens of
other American children had already been abducted to and never
returned.
For 1 year prior to the abduction, my family fought to
prevent this nightmare from happening by pleading with Judge
James Waltz of Orange County to prevent the trip. Eventually,
Judge Waltz felt I was just being difficult and took my custody
away so my ex could obtain passports without my consent. After
he obtained the passports, I had to agree to the trip to have
partial custody back.
Judge Waltz should have listened to my desperate warnings.
By not researching the Lebanese history of non-returns, he
failed to protect the very United States citizens he serves.
All judges should have awareness of IPCA and strongly
consider the risks involved when approving international
vacations, especially when one parent is communicating fears of
abduction and the data is available to show that return from a
particular country is extremely difficult or impossible.
My worst fears for both of my daughters' safety and well-
being became real when I requested the State Department perform
a welfare and whereabouts visit. During the visit, the
grandfather stated that my girls are almost of age to be
married. They were 12 and 13 at the time.
There have been times when the Embassy could not visit the
children, either because it was not safe for the staff to
travel to Tripoli or because my ex-husband denied access. I
have gone several months at a time without being able to
contact my children. I cannot imagine the heartache my children
must be feeling, especially my son, Yousef, who was only 5
years old when he was abducted and ripped out of my arms.
With the help of my Lebanese lawyer, Mhomad Ayoubi, I have
been able to slowly but successfully navigate through the
foreign and complex Lebanese court system. However, 2 years
into my fight and I am still up against my ex-husband's delay
tactics from Lebanon, enabling my husband's tricks.
He has filed appeals to every victory I have won. I have
even won full custody in Lebanon. The Lebanese civil and
execution courts have ordered the children to be returned to me
in the United States immediately. Not surprisingly, my ex filed
an objection to the execution enforcement order based on what
he calls ``no jurisdiction'' for the Lebanese authorities to
enforce their own return order.
It has been 3 weeks since he filed the objection to the
enforcement, and he may be able to run the clock for another 8
weeks or more with frivolous delay appeals.
I am grateful that Lebanon has recognized the situation for
what it is--a kidnapping--and issued orders for my children's
return to their home here in the United States. But my ex, who
is a U.S. Citizen, is making a mockery of Lebanese courts, U.S.
Courts, and, worst of all, putting at risk the lives of our
children. This should not be tolerated by the Government of
Lebanon or the United States.
I have not been able to see my children in 2 long years. I
have asked if I could travel to see my children, but I am told
it is too dangerous. This is my painful reality and hell that I
have been living for 2 years.
I want my children home for the holiday more than anything
in this world, and me and my children have the right to be
together now, right here on American soil. It must end at once,
with my children at home with me.
This could be a watershed moment for U.S.-Lebanon
relations. Although the United States has had dozens of
children abducted to Lebanon, I do not know of any cases before
mine with a court order for return from a Lebanese court. In
fact, there have not been any court-ordered returns ever
reported to the State Department. Zero.
With the current court orders in place in my case, Lebanon
could for the first time return an abducted child to the United
States. It would be a timely and welcome gesture of cooperation
between Lebanon and the United States as we seek justice for
children abducted, wrongfully retained in either country. It
goes both ways.
The State Department and law enforcement have been so
helpful in my case, and I am thankful that they have even more
tools at their disposal in the Goldman Act if Lebanon fails to
enforce the return orders they have issued. Almost $200 million
and so much more is provided in aid to keep Lebanon safe and
strong. So much is at stake.
Isn't it time for Lebanon to enforce the return orders that
they have already acknowledged to send my children home? I call
on the State Department to use every tool at its disposal to
bring these American citizen children home immediately. And I
appeal to Lebanon to, please, quickly enforce the return orders
Lebanon has justly upheld. Set the example so that any parent
now considering the child abuse that is child abduction will
know that Lebanon does not aid kidnappers.
I have one message for my children: I love you, and I am
fighting for you, and I cannot wait for you to come home.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Littleton follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Ms. Littleton, thank you so very much for that
strong testimony, for the appeal to our Government to use every
power at its disposal to use every tool to bring these American
children home immediately.
I think that is part of the message that we are trying to
send to the White House and to the Department of State, that
you have tools in that toolbox that remain unused, and because
of that, the people on the other side of this issue--and that
is to say, the kidnappers--are able to game the system in such
a way that they stall, they play out, buy years, and at the end
of the day, your children and the children of so many Americans
never come home while they are children--maybe as adults, but
certainly not as children.
So I do have a few questions I would like to ask.
Both, Jeffrey, you and Mr. Garaicoa mentioned that you won
in court--no, you mentioned you won in court, Ms. Littleton,
that you won custody. On the enforcement issue, that seems to
be perhaps one of the biggest Achilles' heels in all of this.
Win, win, win--even David Goldman, on whose case I worked, he
was in a situation where he would win cases and then they would
just appeal. It went on for years. And it gets to the point
where you spend so much money and time and effort, they hope
that you will just pack your bags and go home, which you don't
do and so many others don't do. They double down and try even
harder.
But at the end of the day, you get things like the Article
13(b) exception to return, which was used in the Cook case,
saying, as they did in Japan, that living in an apartment is a
``grave threat to the children's well-being,'' which is
absolute nonsense. A lot of Americans live in apartments. There
is nothing wrong with that. It is a great way of--if you don't
have enough money for a mortgage or you are more transient, of
just that is where you decide to live. But in his case, he had
to spend down so much to get to the point where the very home,
his abode, was a simple apartment. And then that is used
against him in court again.
So, Jeffrey, you might want to speak to that issue, because
I think that is utterly perverse, that a court or any judicial
or governmental body would use that kind of logic.
And on the enforcement issue, as you mentioned, Mr.
Garaicoa, about the intimidation factor in the courts. You
talked about the special--how did you put it? Just let me get
it correct. The custody evaluator said that on the case of the
doctor from Miami that he was threatened with prison in Ecuador
for perjury.
The threat, however strongly it is made, of possible
prosecution can have a chilling effect on what happens after
that. And that goes for judges as well. If they feel they may
be subjected to that kind of abuse, they may rule the other
way.
So you might want to speak to that as well. Because I think
the idea of restitution is a very dangerous tool in the hands
of a kidnapper and an abductor.
And then, finally--and then I will go to Mr. Posey, and I
do have some additional questions--just speak to the issue of
if any of you can explain or give any insight as to why you
think both the Obama administration and now the Trump
administration have not used the tools that were given to them.
When I authored the Goldman Act, we took many of the
prescribed sanctions that were embedded in the International
Religious Freedom Act as a very good template on what we can do
on a human rights issue. And this human rights issue is used
against Americans and American parents who are left behind. And
it seemed to me that we had a well-founded group of sanctions.
And demarche was to be the beginning, not the beginning, the
middle, and the end and the only thing that is employed. It was
just meant to be the warning shot before all the other
sanctions begin to kick in.
So if you could speak to that.
And then you have all, in your testimonies, made an appeal
for that, but if you could also just, you know, in a couple of
sentences or two, if President Trump were sitting here, if
Secretary Pompeo and others in the chain of command were
sitting here--because they have to execute the laws, they have
to implement the laws. We write them. But we do oversight as
well, and that is what this is, to say, please, Mr. President,
just implement the law.
And as you say with the GSP, Mr. Garaicoa, if GSP was put
on the chopping block, the abductions would go away. They would
stop this horrific game, this dangerous game, this ugly game of
siding with abduction and with kidnappers.
And I will go to you.
Mr. Morehouse. So, in response to the question regarding
how it works in the courts in Japan and the exceptions they are
creating, it goes beyond just The Hague abduction convention
and really falls all under the continuity principle, where they
will not change current circumstances and really just ignore
how the child ended up with the kidnapping parent.
We saw this play out in Mr. Cook's case, where they
engineered the end conclusion that they wanted to get to, which
was to not return the children, by crafting a best-interest-of-
the-child argument based on living in an apartment. And as you
pointed out a moment ago, many Americans live in apartments. My
son, when he was born, we lived in an apartment in New York. It
is a very common part of American society and, I will note,
also in Japanese society. So it is really kind of a hollow
argument that they made there.
In my own case, as you may or may not recall, the last case
took a year. We thought we had a real chance at proving that he
had a great life available to him here in the United States at
home. Went through all of the motions. I had to present to
court investigators pictures of my house, my neighborhood,
square footage, all of these great attributes of living in the
Seattle area. And they just sat there and marveled at
photographs of a very average American house, discussed that,
asked me several questions, with no real intent of doing any
judicial investigative process.
It was all pre-engineered, even to the point of the fact
where they asked for us to present a reunification process for
Mochi and me. And we drew it out in a very Japanese style. It
was going to span about a year to reunite him, which truly is
absurd under the circumstances, but I was willing to go to that
extent. They never even looked at it seriously in their ruling.
They simply ruled that the U.S. Custody order that I have
had since 2008 has legal effect in Japan, denied her all
custody rights under Japanese law. So, ergo, I am the sole
custodial parent of our son, both in the U.S. And Japan, and
they are unwilling to enforce that.
And then simply on the unwillingness to reunite, I think
that was based on, as I testified earlier, he expressed his
true opinion months earlier to an attorney. They had many
months to sanitize that response and provide an answer for what
the court wanted to hear in order to justify not reuniting
Mochi and me. Just another example of how the continuity
principle works in Japan.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Garaicoa. Mr. Chairman, with respect to the
intimidation issue in the lower court in Ecuador, the U.S.
Custody evaluator, Dr. Miguel Firpi from Miami, is a very well
well-known professional that has over 20 to 30 years'
experience in hearings, and he is one of the few people
actually in Miami who has gone to different countries to appear
in Hague cases.
And he called me the following day, and he said: Mr.
Garaicoa, I cannot explain this to you, but I have never, ever
experienced something like what happened or transpired
yesterday in Quito. I am glad to be back in Miami. At one
moment, I thought I was not coming back. The opposing counsel
threatened me with calling the district attorney's office that
day, at that time in the afternoon in Ecuador. I was threatened
that my passport would not be given back to me and that I would
not go back to the U.S. Because you are committing perjury.
He was not--and this too--the judge did not contain the
opposing counsel. She kept quiet. So Dr. Firpi told me, I could
not give my testimony in a free manner. And to my surprise, the
other professionals that were about to testify via
videoconference were not allowed to testify. And I am sorry to
tell you, but the judge was completely biased, and this is not
looking good.
The hearing that day did not finish, did not end, because
there were other witnesses in Ecuador. But he told me, by the
day this hearing is over, chances are that the judge is going
to rule against you. And that is, in fact, what happened.
Dr. Firpi told me just last week when I knew about this
hearing in Congress, he told me that he would be willing--more
than willing to testify here at some point. And I think it
would be interesting for you to hear from an independent
professional how a foreign court works and whether that court
is being fair or unfair. And he is willing to come or to
testify via videoconference at any moment in time.
Ms. Littleton. Thank you, Chairman.
I think that, in general, it is very easy to look at
Lebanon and recognize that they are not compliant. So far, no
children have ever been returned from Lebanon. I think we are
moving forward into a better space and relationship with them.
They are definitely putting the right foot forward. They are
here today. But more has to be done.
And the fact that there has never been a child returned
from Lebanon is frightening, as a mother who has daughters who
could be married off. And we know that because the welfare and
whereabouts visit that the Embassy did proved that. So, I mean,
are we going to send them another demarche when my daughter is
married off?
Mr. Smith. Mr. Garrett?
Mr. Garrett. Mr. Chairman, the only people more frustrated
in this room than perhaps yourself and your staff, than me, are
the ones at that table. And I want to concede that on the front
end.
Having said that--and I am leaving this body in just a few
short weeks, and there are a lot of reasons I will be glad to
be gone. And one of them is that we sit in this room oftentimes
and identify real problems with real victims, many of whom are
human beings, every one of whom has import in my world view, to
include not only yourselves but your children, and we talk at
these problems and we don't solve them.
Now, I want to commend the chair of this subcommittee, Mr.
Smith. Goldman has the teeth to make this happen. But there are
435 Members, 441 including non-voting Members, in this chamber
and 100 across the hall, and there is 1 guy sitting in the
White House. And everything in this world, tragically, becomes
a carrot and a stick. And we have the stick to make the
Japanese and everyone else play ball if we are willing to use
it.
What I have seen in so many areas--and I shall not
digress--as it relates to U.S. Policy with regard to anything
from who we support in conflict zones abroad, to whether or not
we put a priority on the sanctity of your familial
relationships with the people who you love in a way that we
can't understand unless they are our own family members, we
subrogate oftentimes that which is seemingly micro for the
macro. My submission would be that if we do the small things
right the big things generally will tend to take care of
themselves.
But I hope that somebody in the executive branch is
watching this, because they can fix this right now simply by
suggesting that 12 F-35s might become 10, or what have you.
These things aren't terribly important, tragically, to the
people in the executive branch, whether in this country or
abroad. If they were more important, I would bet we would see
some movement.
Having said all of that, again, this is not in any way to
impugn the folks in this room. I think Mr. Smith has done all
that can be done over a number of years, as have each of you.
But these are things that we need to get on the radar of the
people who can make the changes immediately. And, again, I am
not trying to lecture you. You all know this.
I can't begin to have empathy, praise God, for each one of
you and your suffering. But it matters. It ought to matter. And
if Congress were to decide that we were going to fix this and
we really leaned into it, it would probably be fixed in a few
years. We can fix this at Pennsylvania Avenue now. And so I
hope someone is looking. I hope a phone call is made.
Again, I understand that there are courts, et cetera, of
basic jurisdiction in various places, but some of these cases
that you are describing, cut and dried, right? Agreements on
both sides of the water.
So I wish that my words mattered. I hate mere words. But I
commend you for what you are doing. To the extent that I am
able to help during my time here and after, I will.
This is really, truly symptomatic of mistakes that we make,
I think, in the foreign policy realm by virtue of prioritizing
relations, say, with Japan over relations between a mother and
child, father and child. And I, again, think that you can have
good relations with our colleagues in the global community and
prioritize these familial relations, and, candidly, I don't
think they are mutually exclusive.
And, secondarily, I think they might be even better if we
showed that we actually adhere to the values that we say we do.
Because that is where I think we fail in the grand scheme.
People are looking to see what this country does, not what it
says. And what we are saying is all the right stuff; what we
are doing is not generating the results.
So I thank you and yield back. And I genuinely and
sincerely thank you for the privilege of having been able to
work with you. And, again, I wish condolences meant anything.
It is tragic, what you all are going through, and I hope that
it sees a rapid end. But I fear that until we attitudinally
shift how we do business internationally that it will continue.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. I thank you, Mr. Garrett. And thank you for your
service on this subcommittee and your profound commitment to
human rights.
Mr. Posey?
Mr. Posey. Thank you again very much, Mr. Chairman.
And, again, I would be remiss if I didn't state how
disappointed I am that the State Department is not here and
can't help answer or validate some questions that have arisen
because of the testimony that we have heard here today.
For example, the last time our staff and I met with Ms.
Littleton, the Department of State was there, and we talked
about a number of different approaches that they might try to
execute to make these things happen a little bit more
efficiently. They promised to update us, and they did, in fact,
recontact us and tell us that the local law enforcement had
gone to the children's school to execute an order, and they
planned, actually, to take the kids into possession and return
them to you. But can you just imagine, on that particular day,
the kidnapper didn't let the children go to school. And he
refiled to appeal every other finding.
So, you know, I think the political pressure definitely
needs to be applied at a higher level. As was mentioned here,
when we interface with the local authorities, there is
obviously more than a little bit of corruption, and they are
not on our side, like so much of the international community.
Do you know, each of you, if any criminal charges have been
filed against the kidnapper?
Mr. Morehouse. Yes, I am aware of criminal charges being
filed.
Mr. Posey. Have they been filed? It has been 8 years.
Mr. Morehouse. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Posey. Have they been filed?
Mr. Morehouse. Yes.
Mr. Posey. Is your ex wanted by the FBI for interstate
transportation of children illegally? Or what is the charge?
Mr. Morehouse. It is under IPKCA, the International
Parental Kidnapping Crime Act, and passport fraud.
Mr. Posey. Okay. How severe is the penalty for that?
Mr. Morehouse. I would have to look at the statute, but
they are extraditable because it does meet the comity--it meets
Japanese law under the interpretation of the Department of
Justice.
Mr. Posey. Because that is pretty significant. I think that
got left out of the testimonies here.
Sir, your case?
Mr. Garaicoa. To my knowledge, in Ecuador, or people who
have found a safe haven in Ecuador have not been criminally
charged by the Department of Justice here in the U.S.
Mr. Posey. But where were your children kidnapped?
Mr. Garaicoa. My children were kidnapped to Ecuador. They
were taken from Miami to Ecuador by their mother.
Mr. Posey. Well, you know, it----
Mr. Garaicoa. And I met with the FBI in Miami, and they
told me they are not going to do anything unless I win the
Hague case in Ecuador.
Mr. Posey. Okay. So you have to win a case against Ecuador,
a foreign court, before. And I wonder why your FBI office is
different from your FBI office.
Mr. Morehouse. If I could address that briefly.
My colleagues and I have met in the past with the Office of
the Attorney General at DOJ--not directly with the office, but
underneath in the building. And we have cited the fact that
there has been gross inconsistency in the FBI throughout the
country with regard to responding to parents of kidnapping
cases. I have seen instances as he has described as well as
parents being turned away, claiming that the parent needed to
file local charges first.
Nowhere under the Federal statue does it require any sort
of prerequisite. So I do not know if it is a fundamental lack
in training, policy, or just a desire to push parents away
because, in the end, these cases are hard to prosecute and they
would rather put resources elsewhere. But it is important to
actually get this on the record and get it cited.
And the last thing I will just add in response to that is
our coalition of organizations has asked for the past several
years for DOJ to provide statistics on how many cases they have
pursued and indicted under the International Parental
Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993. To date, they have declined,
stating that they do not collate those numbers, and advised us
to reach out to each district office throughout the country.
Frankly, I think that is kind of a nonsense response, but that
is what they tell us.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. Yeah. I am not a lawyer, but I think
your court proceedings make it very clear that the children are
basically being kidnapped out of Miami. And I am shocked that
you couldn't get any charges filed and he could.
Ms. Littleton, how about you?
Ms. Littleton. There is a Federal warrant from the FBI for
international parental childhood abduction. There is a warrant.
Mr. Posey. There is a warrant. Okay. So two out of three.
Mr. Morehouse. But, if I could just add to that, in my
experience in knowing hundreds of cases, we are the outliers
that actually have received response and indictments by the
Department of Justice. It is highly unusual.
Mr. Posey. Okay. Thank you.
And, again, you wonder what the parents are telling their
home countries too, you know, that are obviously taking the
kidnappers' side. And it would be like, if you went over there
and kidnapped your kids back and brought them over here, they
would be filing motions saying that you molested the children
and all kinds of terrible things, and why we should send them
back to the country with them. I mean, so, you know, it is not
clear-cut, probably, to the other side of the authorities
either. They don't hear your side; they are obviously just
getting the other side.
Do we know if there are children in the United States who
have been abducted in other countries by Americans and are held
here and the people from the other countries are trying to do
just the opposite? Are we aware of that?
Mr. Morehouse. Yes. There are cases where children have
been kidnapped from foreign countries to the United States.
Mr. Posey. How many?
Mr. Morehouse. I don't have the exact figures on that. I do
know the Department of State publishes those numbers, or did in
the past, on their Web site prior to the Goldman Act. And they
would list, year by year, the number of incoming cases, as they
call it.
Mr. Posey. Okay. Do you know how the status works on any of
those? Do we respect a foreign court's jurisdiction?
Mr. Morehouse. My understanding from meetings with the
Department of State on that topic is that is handled by the
courts that adjudicate it. And the general answer could be yes,
but I think, as you pointed out, they get into the details and
the he-said-she-said component. So one could make an argument
that we may not be perfect on this as well.
However, I do think our American rule of law does apply,
and hearsay is probably not allowed in those jurisdictions the
way it is in Japan and, I presume, in Lebanon and Ecuador and
many other countries that stack the deck against American
citizens when our children are kidnapped abroad.
Mr. Posey. Yeah, you would think there should be maybe an
international court, but then you see what happens at the U.N.
Same thing. You know, it is all against us.
Just out of curiosity, is Judge Waltz still on the bench?
Ms. Littleton. Yes, he is.
Mr. Posey. You would not have had a problem were it not for
his poor judgment, if I understand your testimony correctly.
Ms. Littleton. That is correct.
Mr. Posey. Is he aware of what this turned into?
Ms. Littleton. He is fully aware, and he actually finished
doing the final court orders, the final return orders that we
submitted to the Lebanese civil court that Lebanon has
acknowledged.
So he has tried to make it right or rectify it. But I have
been left to the fate of my lawyer in Lebanon using the court
documents that Judge Waltz is now sending to have my children
returned.
Mr. Posey. And he seems like--your attorney there, I was on
the phone with you one time where we did a conference call, and
he seemed pretty confident--seems confident and competent. And
I guess he did get everybody to the point they wanted to go,
until the local police muffed the execution of the order for
whatever reason, or however reason the kidnapper knew about it.
And, you know, that is kind of sad.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is really clear that we need to
get some level of the State Department involved, at maybe a
higher level that would actually want to show up at a hearing
and see what was said and be up to date on this stuff.
And I think, to the point of the witnesses today, clearly,
the local level of governments are not going to be responsive.
I don't think we are going to expect to see any change of
behavior on their part unless we get higher-level interaction
on our part. And they have all mentioned the possibility of
sanctions being the key.
And, I mean, this is not on the radar screen of most
Americans, but if you know about one of these cases and you
know about the injustice of one of these cases and you think
about the children of these cases, it should shoot far up the
interest screen of any agency, particularly our Department of
State. But, you know, I don't have an answer right now, except
some of those things that I have expressed that we should
pursue further with our Department of State.
But I just want to thank you for your interest in this, as
you have so many other humanitarian issues and stood on so much
principle for the betterment of mankind. I am deeply grateful
to you, sir.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Posey, thank you very much. And thank you
for being such a great advocate for Ms. Littleton. I think that
shows a clear concern for, as she put it, the hell that she is
living, 2 years now, having her children abducted.
You did mention in your testimony, as we have seen so many
times all over the world, you have won case after case, you
have full custody, and yet there is always the frivolous appeal
that follows by your ex.
And my appeal from this chair now to Lebanon, as you
pointed out here:
``With the current court orders in place in my case,
Lebanon could for the first time return an abducted
child to the United States. It would be a timely and
welcome gesture of cooperation between Lebanon and the
United States as we seek justice for children abducted
and wrongfully retained in either country.''
I mean, that is a level-headed appeal to a country with
whom we have strong relations and friendship, notwithstanding
some other issues that complicate it at times. But this seems
to be, on a purely humanitarian basis, something they could do
tomorrow--enforce the orders. And I hope that they will take
that from you being here today.
And I would point out and I am grateful, there have been
many members of the press here today. C-SPAN has also covered
this, and we are deeply grateful for that, because that allows
the American people to hear you and to hear what American
parents are suffering because of parental child abduction.
And, Mr. Posey, as you pointed out, we have had the State
Department here before. We have had the high-level individuals.
For the record, when I introduced this, it took 5 years to get
passed. The Obama administration was opposed to it when Hillary
Clinton was the Secretary of State. When John Kerry got that
position things changed within State, and I am grateful to him
for that, because we would pass it in the House and it would
languish and die in the Senate. And it took 5 years to get the
Goldman Act enacted into law.
But a law is only as good as its enforcement. And,
certainly, the prevention part of it is doing better and doing
well; not as good as we would like it to be. But the second
part, the returns of children, has been a failure.
And it is only a failure due to lack of enforcement. Again,
as Juan said earlier, if we would just say GSP is at risk and
we mean it, we would have their attention full bore, and they
would make a change in these dilatory tactics as well as their
injustices being meted out to left-behind parents.
And, again, there is always the issue of reciprocity. We do
try in this country to honor our Hague Convention obligations,
and that is to non-Hague countries as well. But our idea is
that it is the rule of law. Custody needs to be determined at
the place of habitual residence, not in some far-off court of
law somewhere, where a judge may not be Hague-literate and not
know the issues like parental alienation and the damage it does
do to children.
So we need, I think, perhaps, to do a letter to President
Trump and include your testimonies and some of the other very,
very high-profile cases that make the case for robust and
rigorous enforcement. And it also ought to go to Secretary
Pompeo as well.
I have raised it at the highest levels myself, but when you
hear what you had to say here today, you can't help but be
moved mightily to do far more. And, hopefully, the President
will have that same view. Enforcement has been the problem
since enactment, and it is time for that to change. The pivot
day should be today.
So if any of my distinguished panelists or any of you
would--any final comments?
Okay. So thank you. We will work with you. It is
bipartisan, I am happy to say. And my hope is that your
children will be home soon. God bless you.
[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H.
Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, and
chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights,
and International Organizations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H.
Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, and
chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights,
and International Organizations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H.
Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, and
chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights,
and International Organizations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]