[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                      BRING ABDUCTED CHILDREN HOME

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL
               HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

                                   of

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________


                              May 23, 2023

                               __________


                           Serial No. 118-27

                               __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs






                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]






Available:  http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov, 
                       or http://www.govinfo.gov

                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

53-072PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2024










                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                   MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     GREGORY MEEKS, New York, Ranking 
JOE WILSON, South Carolina               Member
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania	     BRAD SHERMAN, California
DARRELL ISSA, California	     GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
ANN WAGNER, Missouri		     WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
BRIAN MAST, Florida		     DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
KEN BUCK, Colorado		     AMI BERA, California
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee		     JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee	     DINA TITUS, Nevada
ANDY BARR, Kentucky		     TED LIEU, California
RONNY JACKSON, Texas		     SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
YOUNG KIM, California		     DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida	     COLIN ALLRED, Texas
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan		     ANDY KIM, New Jersey
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN-RADEWAGEN, 	     SARA JACOBS, California
    American Samoa		     KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas		     SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK, 
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio		         Florida
JIM BAIRD, Indiana		     GREG STANTON, Arizona
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida		     MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
THOMAS KEAN, JR., New Jersey	     JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York	     JONATHAN JACOBS, Illinois
CORY MILLS, Florida		     SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia		     JIM COSTA, California
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas		     JASON CROW, Colorado
JOHN JAMES, Michigan		     BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
KEITH SELF, Texas

                    Brandon Shields, Staff Director

                    Sophia Lafargue, Staff Director

                                 ------                                

 Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights and International 
                             Organizations

                  CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey, Chair

MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida        SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania, Ranking 
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,           Member
    American Samoa                   AMI BERA, California
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas                SARA JACOBS, California
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia              KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
JOHN JAMES, Michigan

                       Mary Vigil, Staff Director
                      Allie Davis, Staff Director








                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                               WITNESSES

Bernier-Toth, Michelle, Special Advisor for Children's Issues, 
  Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State...........     7
Morehouse, Jeffery, Executive Director, Bring Abducted Children 
  Home...........................................................    39
Hunter, Dr. Noelle, Director, International Child Abduction 
  Prevention and Research Office.................................    51
Apy, Patricia, Legal Expert on International Parental Child 
  Abduction......................................................    65

                                APPENDIX

Hearing Notice...................................................    80
Hearing Minutes..................................................    82
Hearing Attendance...............................................    83

             ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Statement submitted for the record from Andrew Kim...............    84
Statement submitted for the record from Astrid Johnson...........    85
Statement submitted for the record from Brian Tavares............    87
Statement submitted for the record from James Cook...............    89
Statement submitted for the record from Brian Sung...............    93
Statement submitted for the record from John Sichi...............    95
Statement submitted for the record from Jon Stefanick............    97
Statement submitted for the record from Randy Collins............    99
Statement submitted for the record from Rick Johnson.............   103

            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Responses to questions submitted for the record..................   104









 
                      BRING ABDUCTED CHILDREN HOME

                         Tuesday, May 23, 2023

                          House of Representatives,
              Subcommittee on Global Health, Global
                    Human Rights, and International
                                     Organizations,
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 
room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. 
Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Mr. Smith. The subcommittee will come to order, and good 
morning to all of you.
    The purpose of this hearing is to examine the 
implementation of the Sean and David Goldman International 
Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act of 2014, also known 
as the Goldman Act, with a special focus on the U.S. Secretary 
of State's need to make progress in response to noncompliance 
by foreign governments in cases of international parental child 
abductions.
    Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any point and all members will have 5 days to submit 
statements, extraneous material, and questions for the record, 
subject to the length limitations contained in our rules.
    I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, who is on his way, Mr. Fitzpatrick, be allowed to 
sit on the dais and participate in today's hearing, and without 
objection so ordered.
    I now will open the hearing and I am very grateful that all 
of you are here today. Our director of the children's issues, 
Michelle Bernier-Toth, thank you for being here and for the 
work that you're doing on behalf of left behind parents and 
abducted children.
    This week, we will commemorate the National Missing 
Children's Day, as we all know, and we will remember the 
families that have been torn apart by the crime of 
international parental child abduction. This crime affects 
hundreds and hundreds of American families every year.
    I want to thank the left behind parents who are with us 
today and send a message to all of the left behind families 
around our Nation that we will never stop working to bring 
abducted children--your children--home.
    Today we will hear testimony about the devastating impact 
of international parental child abduction on families and 
children and we will examine what more the U.S. Government can 
do to prevent and address this terrible crime.
    We will hear from parents who have personally experienced 
the heartbreaking pain of being separated from their children. 
They know all too well the financial, legal, cultural, and 
linguistic challenges to bringing children home from a foreign 
country.
    Mr. Morehouse, Dr. Hunter, thank you for being here today, 
for being so tenacious in this cause. You are truly 
inspirations to all of us and your words cause us to act and 
your witness cause us to act. So I want to thank you for that 
leadership.
    And I also want to thank Patricia Apy for joining us today, 
an expert on this issue and a brilliant lawyer. She represented 
David Goldman in the fight to bring back his son, Sean, from 
Brazil. Thankfully, Sean came home. It was after 5 years.
    But many children are--and she would win, I would just 
point out parenthetically, in court after court after court and 
still there was no return. So I do want to thank her for her 
tenacity as well.
    Ms. Apy testified at the first hearing that I held on 
international child--parental child abduction back in 2009 and 
I'm grateful that she is joining us today.
    And just for the record as well, as we wrote to Sean and 
David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and 
Return Act her insights were so valuable in terms of the text, 
the concepts, and the bill itself.
    It took 5 years to get it enacted into law. It passed the 
House two times, sat and languished in the Senate and, finally, 
it did--it got the support of the White House and it was signed 
into law.
    We must remember that child abduction is child abuse and it 
has devastating emotional, psychological, and even physical 
consequences for both abducted children and their families left 
behind.
    These are American citizens looking to their government for 
help when legal processes are unavailable or, as so often is 
the case, have failed. And so we will also discuss the State 
Department's progress of implementing the Sean and David 
Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act 
of 2014, a law that I authored, to provide executive branch--
the executive branch with the necessary tools to address the 
problem of international parental child abduction.
    The Goldman Act empowered the State Department to seek the 
return of American children, yet, the department, in my 
opinion, has not used the full of range of tools as Congress 
has intended so there's always need for improvement and we need 
also on the House and Senate side to be looking at how we can 
improve what we do in terms of legislation and ensuring that 
there's sufficient resources provided for this effort.
    We are very, very grateful, and I am grateful, to have the 
Special Advisor on Children's Issues Michelle Bernier-Toth, and 
she will give us information as to how the department--because 
she is walking point on this--is leading those efforts and the 
progress and where the challenges and gaps might remain.
    Since the Goldman Act was enacted there has been a decline 
in the number of American children abducted overseas and that 
is a good news story. But, sadly, the rate of return of parents 
does--needs to improve.
    In the State Department's latest annual report on 
international child abduction, and I have read it, as required 
by the Act it states that the 2022 Office of Children's Issues 
handled a total of 657 active abduction cases involving 863 
children and 216 of these cases were opened just last year.
    It also states that 118 cases were resolved in 2022, which 
resulted in the return of 165 abducted children to the United 
States.
    In 2022 there were over 3,500 children who were enrolled in 
the Children's Passport and Issuance Alert Program and the 
total number, according to the report, is now at 62,400. That 
is a large number of children that are on that Alert program.
    On the prevention side the report notes that the--in 2022 
there were over 4,900 prevention-related increase. So people 
are calling. We hope that they will call even more.
    And let me just say I am grateful that C-SPAN is here today 
and I hope more Americans who might find themselves in this 
situation current, even past and future, will know that they 
have a resource they need to make that phone call and begin the 
process. So my hope is that some will be encouraged to do so as 
a result of this hearing.
    The State Department's annual report, which names specific 
countries that are found to demonstrate a pattern of 
noncompliance with their responsibilities to address cases of 
international parental child abduction under the Hague 
Convention, the most recent report names 14 countries as 
demonstrating a pattern of noncompliance and six of them have 
been on the list since the first report was published in 2015: 
Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, India, Jordan, and Peru. The 
Goldman Act provides the State Department with powerful tools 
to advocate for abducted American children and urge countries 
to comply with their Hague Convention obligations.
    It specifically lists increasingly escalating action, 
sanctions, from a demarche to a public condemnation to a delay 
or cancellation of one or more bilateral visits to extradition.
    Appropriations language since Fiscal Year 1921 has 
authorized the Secretary to withhold certain bilateral 
assistance funds for the central governments of countries that 
the Secretary determines or not taking appropriate steps to 
comply with the Hague Convention and to date I'm not sure any 
have been withheld and I would encourage the administration to 
use that tool as well to get the attention and to try to compel 
positive action.
    With hundreds of American children--American citizens--
still missing it seems unconscionable that the--that demarches 
seem to be the go-to means and I do hope, again, all these 
tools will be used to their fullest extent.
    The State Department is also authorized under the Goldman 
Act to pursue bilateral agreements with countries that are 
unlikely to become Hague Convention countries or have 
unresolved preconvention abduction cases, and Japan jumps off 
the page on that one.
    I want to ask the department why there are not more MOUs 
with these countries. Why are we not pursuing more supplemental 
bilateral agreements with countries like Japan?
    And I led a trip to Japan years ago and we talked about--
this is before they signed on to the Hague--and one of the 
bittersweet ideas--OK, we were glad they were moving toward 
ratification, which they did.
    But all of those cases that preceded ratification had the 
potential of falling off the focus and any kind of path toward 
resolution, and an MOU, certainly, would be greatly helpful 
there to say let's solve this. You know, delay is denial and, 
you know, injustice need not be forever for these families.
    Japan has a truly disturbing track record on these cases, 
even though it has not been listed as noncompliant in recent 
State Department reports. There have been more than 500 U.S. 
children kidnaped to Japan since 1994, which is when the U.S. 
Government started tracking them.
    Yet, Japan has made very little progress on them, 
especially in the cases that predate, like I mentioned a moment 
ago, the Hague's signing on to the Convention in 2014.
    And then there has been slow progress in changing its 
single parent custody laws. Parents like Jeffery Morehouse, who 
will testify momentarily, and many others are left waiting for 
years and years and years and years without action. The State 
Department must use all of its tools at its disposal to finally 
get this right and pursue more strongly for returns.
    That is why I introduced and plan to reintroduce in 
Congress--this Congress--the Bring Abducted Children Home 
Amendments Act.
    This bill will strengthen key aspects of the Goldman Act 
such as requiring disaggregated data and increased transparency 
from State, providing more resources for left behind families 
and increasing Federal law enforcement cooperation.
    Left behind families have been waiting for too long and we 
just need to put a strong sense of urgency about getting this 
resolved.
    I do look forward to your testimony in a moment. But I'm 
very, very happy to recognize the ranking member, Susan Wild, 
for any opening remarks she might have.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to all of 
you. I think it's appropriate that we have this hearing on the 
week, that National Missing Children's Day occurs this 
Thursday.
    The subject of this hearing, I know, is personal for many 
of you and for people in our communities and across our 
country. I see that several of you have photographs of 
children. Please feel free at any point to put them up, 
demonstrate them. It's really important that we make this issue 
as personal as possible. I know it's intensely personal for 
you.
    Like our last subcommittee hearing, which focused on human 
trafficking, I believe this hearing reflects an area of wide 
bipartisan agreement and I'm looking forward to working with 
all of you and our colleagues to come up with solutions.
    In the challenges that it poses--legal, ethical, personal, 
and geopolitical--this issue is incredibly complex. Our task as 
Members of Congress and policymakers is to view it through a 
human lens while weighing the many competing forces that If not 
correctly addressed can endanger the safety of those involved, 
especially the children themselves.
    That is why the grave risk exception is so critical and 
why, while moving as robustly as possible, we always need to 
guard against unintended consequences and ensure the Hague 
Convention and measures against international parental 
abduction are not making vulnerable parents more vulnerable and 
are protecting people in situations of domestic violence.
    Thank you to our witnesses for being here and thank you, 
Chair Smith, for calling this important hearing. With that, I 
look forward to a productive hearing and I yield back.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Ms. Wild.
    I'd like to now introduce our first witness, Ms. Michelle 
Bernier-Toth, a highly distinguished career at--member of the 
U.S. Department of State.
    She began in 1987 and has served in consular positions in 
Damascus, Syria, Doha, Qatar, and Abu Dhabi, and UAE. She has 
also served in the Foreign Service positions as well as the 
Foreign Service Institute before converting to civil service in 
2003.
    As a civil service officer she has served as the deputy 
director in the Children's--Office of Children's Issues, 
director in the Office of American Citizens Services and Crisis 
Management and as managing director Overseas Citizen Services 
as well.
    In December 2019 Michelle was named as the Special Advisor 
for Children's Issues in the Bureau of Consular Affairs. She 
has earned her bachelor's degree in Near Eastern languages and 
literature from Yale University and a master's degree in Arab 
studies from Georgetown University.
    We're delighted to have you here and thank you. The floor 
is yours.

    STATEMENT OF MICHELLE BERNIER-TOTH, SPECIAL ADVISOR FOR 
CHILDREN'S ISSUES, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT 
                            OF STATE

    Ms. Bernier-Toth. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Wild, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you so much 
for the invitation to speak on an issue that is important to 
all of us, that of international parental child abduction.
    I have submitted a detailed written statement to the 
subcommittee about the work that we have been doing, which I 
ask to be included in the record.
    Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Wild, I have the privilege 
to focus on this issue now as Special Advisor for Children's 
Issues. It is a role I take seriously because ultimately is 
about children, children and families, who, as you said, have 
been the victims of and traumatized by international parental 
child abduction.
    Since becoming Special Advisor I have traveled extensively, 
both virtually and in person, to meet with foreign governments 
and officials in numerous countries, including those that you 
cited as being still noncompliant, including many of those.
    My message is always the same, that we owe it to the 
children and their families to resolve these abductions and to 
work to prevent them.
    What I often find in these meetings is recognition of the 
challenges that our foreign partners face, whether as Hague 
Abduction Convention treaty partners or not--judicial delays, a 
lack of understanding of the Convention, problems with locating 
children or enforcing return orders, or simply a lack of 
capacity in the countries' under resourced central authority.
    These are among the challenges I find when I meet with 
foreign government officials. They admit the problems and they 
want to do better. My question for them is how can we help.
    We want our treaty partners to succeed for the benefit of 
the children and their families. We have supported judicial 
training in countries where judges are not familiar with the 
Convention.
    We have trained central authorities on how to manage cases. 
We have brought foreign officials to the United States to learn 
from their counterparts. We connect countries that are 
resolved--that have resolved enforcement problems with those 
that are still struggling.
    We highlight our concerns about understaffed and under 
resourced central authorities with those who can make a 
difference. We work closely with our colleagues in regional 
bureaus and at our embassies to develop tailored strategies for 
each country.
    We use every opportunity at all levels to talk about 
problems and look for solutions. Some of these conversations 
are with key government officials. Others are with members of 
civil society, members of the legal community, and other 
stakeholders.
    We use the media to raise public awareness and try to 
influence government actors. I've written op-eds and conducted 
interviews with major foreign newspapers targeting problems in 
their countries, such as Brazil and Korea. We also use 
demarches to formally convey our concerns and demands and to 
make these a matter of record.
    I know there are many who believe that we should withhold 
assistance. I note that our foreign assistance is given to 
promote our national interest, such as counter terrorism, 
counter narcotics, regional security, issues I know that this 
subcommittee is very much focused on.
    We engage in promoting the rule of law, an important goal 
that assists us in the implementation of the Hague Convention. 
We weigh whether withholding assistance will achieve the 
results we want by influencing those who can make a difference.
    I do not work alone. A team of dedicated colleagues in the 
Office of Children's Issues and throughout the department 
support me in thinking creatively and acting constructively. I 
know that progress does not come quickly enough for the parents 
and children traumatized by international parental child 
abduction.
    My colleagues in the Office of Children's Issues are 
committed to assisting left behind parents seek the return of 
their children, which we know is too often a long and painful 
process.
    We wish it were otherwise. That is why I will continue to 
press our treaty partners to live up to their obligations and 
urge other countries to join the Convention and implement it 
fully.
    In doing so, I and my colleagues appreciate the support of 
Congress in demonstrating that resolving and preventing 
international parental child abduction is a priority for the 
entire U.S. Government.
    Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Bernier-Toth follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
    We are joined by Dr. Bera. Thank you for joining us today. 
I have just some opening questions. Then I'll yield to my 
colleagues.
    You know, the 2023 report identifies 14 countries which 
were determined to be noncompliant. Of those eight are 
countries with the Hague Convention in force with the United 
States.
    In all but one of those cases the report identifies 
judicial performance or delay as contributing to the 
determination of noncompliance and I'm wondering, you know, in 
the case where a judicial determination is not in conformity 
with the treaty or the process applied is not compliant with 
the treaty, is that case still defined as resolved?
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. That is something we look at case by case 
and when we--we have a team of attorneys in the State 
Department and we often ask them to review a case to see 
whether it is in fact compliant with the Convention and If we 
have--If we start to see trends where that's not the case we 
will raise that with the foreign government.
    Thank you for the question about judicial delays. That is 
something that we have identified as a problem, as you say, in 
several countries, many countries. When I meet with judges in 
those countries--and, again, I will note I have visited 
Ecuador, Argentina, Peru, Brazil, and India over the past 
year--I find that it's typically not that the judges are 
deliberately making the wrong decisions but that they do not 
understand the Convention, which is why we have made such a 
concerted effort to promote judicial training, judicial 
education in those countries.
    In Brazil, for example, the judges of the supreme court 
have spearheaded not just writing guidance for judges 
throughout Brazil but have hosted two separate workshops to try 
to raise awareness among the judges in Brazil about how to 
implement the Convention correctly.
    These are the kinds of activities that we're trying to 
support and promote not just in Brazil but in other countries 
as well.
    Mr. Smith. Let me just ask you, when there is a problem in 
a resolution that's not been following, you know, the 
fundamental principles of the Hague Convention where is that 
documented? Does it go into a file? Does it--does it get--find 
its way into the report or----
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. It would be part of--it would be--
obviously, it'd be part of the case notes for the case. But it 
would also be--the question is what happens next--what are the 
next steps that we can take with that parent to try to find a 
solution of some sort.
    Mr. Smith. With regards to nontreaty countries what steps, 
If any, have been taken to review the terms prior--of prior 
MOUs entered into between the United States and Egypt and 
Jordan?
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. That is an excellent question. Memorandum 
of understandings are one way to memorialize a joint commitment 
to look at cases, to look at the issues, to try to find 
solutions short of a binding or legal remedy because, 
obviously, you're only using the legal remedies that are 
already at your disposal.
    They are a way to get people to the table to talk. I was 
actually in the Office of Children's Issues in 2004 and 1905 
when we entered into the MOUs with Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan. 
Because they were not binding they're only as good as the 
commitment of both parties and I think we find times when, for 
whatever reason, sometimes governments lose track.
    But I can tell you I will be going to Lebanon and Jordan 
next--early next month and this will be a topic of discussion. 
But we do look at MOUs to say is this going to get us the 
dialog that we need to try to resolve cases outside of the 
Hague Convention.
    Is it going to detract from any efforts--depending on the 
country is it going to detract from ongoing efforts to get the 
country to move to Hague? Do we need it?
    Sometimes we have the understanding without the memorandum 
and we have countries that we work with very collaboratively on 
an ongoing basis without a piece of paper. So we do weigh all 
of these factors when we look at each country and what might 
work best in that circumstance.
    Mr. Smith. Could you tell us how often does the Interagency 
Working Group meet and would it be possible, you know, protocol 
wise If perhaps I and my ranking member and others were to sit 
in on one of those?
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. The Interagency Working Group meeting, 
which--again, thank you very much for that. The Act set that up 
and it's been a wonderful success.
    It really has strengthened our interagency working 
relationships with a number--the wide range of agency partners. 
Before the pandemic it was meeting biannually. With the 
pandemic that has gone to an annual basis but we're hoping to 
get back to the biannual pattern of meetings.
    That said, I think even just those biannual or even just 
the annual meetings really helped create the network of 
contacts that we need on a day-to-day basis.
    The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for early 
August--the last one was in August 2022--and I can--we will be 
hosting it. So I think we can have, you know, decision--
discretion over who comes. So thank you.
    Mr. Smith. Appreciate that. Thank you so much.
    You know, one of the provisions we have put in--embedded 
into the Goldman Act was to encourage families, left behind 
parents, to be in touch--for you to convey to that person, you 
know, or persons If it's the whole family that their 
Congressmen and two U.S. Senators might be of enormous help. 
That is, you know, there's nothing but value added.
    I do not think too many of us have messed up when it comes 
to these cases. But it does add a certain sense of urgency 
because of the power of the person just the advocacy we bring 
to bear. How has that been working out?
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. So that has become a standard practice. 
Thank you very much. When the Office of Children's Issues opens 
a new case, when a left behind parent contacts them and they 
open the case on their behalf, they also provide information on 
who their senators and Member of Congress is so that they can 
reach out to them.
    We really value the support that we have from Members of 
Congress because it does make a difference. When I travel 
overseas and meet with foreign governments I can very 
accurately say this is an issue that is important not just to 
the administration but to the Congress as well. It's an all of 
government concern and that is very helpful.
    Mr. Smith. Just let me ask you, Japan was designated as 
noncompliant, as you know, in the 2023 report with reference to 
a number of cases, quote, ``voluntarily resolved.''
    How does the report define voluntary resolution, which is 
consistent with the purpose of the treaty? While the report 
indicates that judicial authorities rendered timely decisions 
it also indicates that the U.S. is not aware of a single 
abduction case in which a judicial order related to 
international child--parental child abduction needed 
enforcement.
    To your knowledge, has there been a judicial determination 
made pursuant to the treaty to return any abducted child to the 
U.S. in the last year and can you direct me to where that 
information is to be found in the report?
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. So with regards to Japan, a voluntary 
resolution would be where the parents actually came to some 
sort of a decision regarding the child, whether that access 
return or whatever the case might be, whatever the parents 
decide, and, obviously, that's something that we appreciate 
because it can be less traumatic for everybody.
    Mr. Smith. If you'd yield on that one point.
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. Yes.
    Mr. Smith. The undue pressure that many of these families 
have experienced, these left behind parents, it may be years. 
It's bankrupted them, perhaps, or, certainly, the pain and 
agony. They're more likely to accept terms and conditions that 
are less than fair.
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. I totally agree.
    Mr. Smith. So how does--If it does not comport with the 
treaty what's--you know, how do we remedy that?
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. It is totally not an ideal situation, in 
many instances. I, too, agree with that and, again, a 
voluntary--it is where the parents have come to some sort of an 
agreement.
    As far as returns, you're absolutely correct that Japan 
acceded to the Convention and then we realized that yes, they 
had acceded but they were unable under their own laws and 
processes to enforce return orders.
    So judges might have been making the right decisions but 
they weren't being enforced. That was something that we pressed 
Japan on because, again, what's the point of the Convention If 
their orders aren't being enforced?
    Japan subsequently passed legislation to give teeth to 
their enforcement orders and I'm pleased to say that since 2021 
Japan has successfully enforced all U.S. Hague cases in which 
there was an order--a return ordered. So that's a step forward.
    Again, it's not something--we're not--we're still watching. 
We're still monitoring. That's only been 2 years, and we want 
to see what happens, you know, going down the road. But there 
is some progress, though, that we want to take note of.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you.
    Ranking Member Wild?
    Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As I was listening to you I was reflecting back on my own 
legal career before I came to Congress, which spanned 30 some 
years, and at the very early point of my legal career I did 
some domestic relations work. Thankfully, that was a relatively 
short period of my legal career.
    But there was nothing more challenging than difficult 
custodial arrangements and I cannot even imagine the added 
piece of an international abduction and how that gets resolved.
    And so I commend you on the work that you've done and are 
continuing to do in this highly emotional space. You've been a 
consular officer yourself. I understand that they are extremely 
important in the process of ascertaining an abducted American 
child's welfare and whereabouts abroad.
    Can you discuss that a little bit so that those of us who 
haven't been in that role understand what the consular officer 
does and what kind of factors will contribute to his or her 
success in that role?
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. Thank you for that question. We're always 
happy to talk about what we do. We conduct welfare whereabouts 
visits on children who have been parentally abducted at the 
request of the parent and this is----
    Ms. Wild. You mean the parent who----
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. The left behind parent.
    Ms. Wild. The left behind parent.
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. The left behind parent. Sometimes we 
conduct them when we have our own individual or separate 
concerns about the child's welfare.
    We have the authority under the Vienna Convention to do 
that at any time If we have concerns. One of the challenges is 
often that--is getting access to the child and sometimes 
negotiating with the taking parent how and when and where we 
can meet the child.
    We emphasize that we are concerned about the child's 
welfare and we also recognize that our visit with the child and 
our report to the left behind parent about how the child is 
doing, how they are faring, how they're doing in school, may be 
the only information that parent has or has had about their 
child in years.
    And so it's so important that we get the details accurate 
and that we convey to them as much as possible about the 
child's conditions, how they're--you know, again, everything--
information we can get.
    So we have guidance that we provide to consular officers. 
We do a lot of training on this so they understand what their 
role is, that they understand how to negotiate that visit to 
make sure that we can get to see the child.
    And I will note that even this week we are running our 
primary training program on responding to intercountry--
international parental child abduction, focusing on Middle 
Eastern countries, our post in the Middle East.
    So that's going on right now. But, again, this is an 
important part of that because these visits are really critical 
in providing the left behind parent with information on their 
child.
    Ms. Wild. And that's assuming that you can ascertain the 
whereabouts of the child?
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. That is, and that is something that we, 
obviously, will be working with. If we do not have the 
information from the left behind parent, if they do not have 
that information, that we would work with local authorities to 
try to locate the child and we, you know, again, may have to be 
very creative in that, sort of looking at various ways and 
various contacts that child might have with other people to see 
how can we find them--how can we find.
    Ms. Wild. So is the consular officers' security a concern? 
Safety and security?
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. It is but it depends on the country. It 
depends on the conditions. It depends on the individual case, 
obviously, and that is something that a consular officer would 
consult with the regional security officer as to what steps 
might need to be taken in order to conduct that visit.
    We also--I think one of the, if you will, silver linings, 
such as it is, of the pandemic is that even if we cannot get 
physically to meet a child we sometimes can meet them 
virtually.
    It does not entirely, you know, compensate for the in-
person, obviously, but it's sometimes better than nothing if we 
cannot get anything else.
    Ms. Wild. And if you have trouble ascertaining the 
whereabouts of the child are there countries that are more 
cooperative in assisting than others?
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. Again----
    Ms. Wild. And assuming that the answer is going to be yes 
can you tell us which countries are not particularly 
cooperative?
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. I think where there--countries are not 
cooperative it's often because they also have a problem in 
locating children, period, which is one of the criteria we look 
at in the ICAPRA report.
    For example, countries that are--their law enforcement 
capabilities are under resourced or untrained or perhaps they 
do not see this as a higher priority as other law enforcement 
matters.
    When I was traveling in Ecuador and Peru this is something 
I raised with local authorities, not that they cannot always 
find children but when they have trouble we want to make sure 
that they have the resources and that they understand this is 
important, too.
    So I do not have the list of countries off the top of my 
head where this is an issue but----
    Ms. Wild. OK.
    Ms. Bernier-Toth [continuing]. But when it is an issue we 
raise it.
    Ms. Wild. And are there additional tools and resources that 
need to be provided to consular officers in this role that they 
do not currently have that are on their wish list----
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. I'll have to take that----
    Ms. Wild [continuing]. That would make the job easier?
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. I'll take that back and consult with my 
colleagues.
    Ms. Wild. OK. Please let us know, if you would.
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. I will.
    Ms. Wild. I'm going to yield at this point, Mr. Chairman. I 
have other questions but I'd like other members to have a 
chance.
    Mr. Smith. Dr. Bera? Thank you.
    Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, again, thank 
you for the work that you're doing. Obviously, a very 
challenging situation.
    I'd like to address--I'm the senior Indian-American Member 
of Congress and, you know, India has not acceded to the Hague 
Convention and I, certainly, want to talk about that a bit.
    You know, in my prehearing reading, you know, I read some 
of the reasons the Indians have given for not acceding to the 
Convention, one of them being that many of the taking parents 
are victims of domestic violence in India. Still is a place 
where you have a lot of arranged marriages.
    You have, you know, brides that will go to a foreign 
country, let's say the United States, where they really do not 
have any other support system and, you know, work closely with 
South Asian Indian-American organizations trying to address 
domestic violence. So that's a very real concern.
    That said, just from your perspective in working with 
India--so I can see the scenario where a mother flees with 
their child back to, you know, where their parents are in 
India.
    That said, you know, how do we address that issue of 
domestic violence but also, you know, reuniting families? And, 
you know, that, obviously, is a tough situation.
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. Well, thank you for that question and 
thank you for your interest in India because, again, that is 
one of my highest priorities is working with India and the 
Indian government to resolve some of the really heart-wrenching 
cases that involve both mothers and fathers as left behind 
parents.
    I think that's something that we constantly remind the 
Indian government of. It's not all women taking their children 
to India. It's also men.
    Domestic violence in any case is a complicating factor. But 
my point, as I raise with my interlocutors in New Delhi and 
here in Washington when we have met for our bilateral--annual 
bilateral dialog with the Indian government is that if a woman, 
let's say, is the victim of domestic violence here in the 
United States she needs to avail herself of the protection and 
resources that are available in the United States.
    We have Federal, State, and local programs to protect and 
support victims of domestic violence. That feeling that they 
have no option but to take their child to India or to whatever 
country is not the option. It should not be the option.
    And so we are actually talking about active outreach to the 
Indian-American community about this issue because if we can 
prevent these abductions we're so many steps ahead. But working 
with the Indian government is definitely very, very high on my 
radar screen. I've made it a career goal.
    Mr. Bera. Certainly let us know or let my office know how 
we can be helpful amplifying this issue within the diaspora 
here in the United States because it is a very real issue.
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. We will definitely be talking to you.
    Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you. Are there specific things that 
we should raise with the Indian government to address this 
issue because that would be helpful?
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. We would welcome the opportunity to meet 
with the caucus to talk through some of this to see where we 
can collaborate, and in our conversations with the Indian 
government--again, we have our annual bilateral meetings where 
this is always a top agenda item.
    But besides that, we have ongoing fairly frequent 
discussions with the Indian government in New Delhi, the 
Ministry of External Affairs and the Ministry of Women and 
Child Development, which is the lead agency on this.
    And we are--most recently our embassy in New Delhi hosted a 
judicial seminar on international parental child abduction and 
other child--children's issues, which brought together over 400 
members of the legal community and civil society.
    So we want to raise awareness within India about the 
problems and really set the record straight on what's happening 
and the trauma that this causes. So we will be--we'd love to 
come to you to talk about how to amplify that message.
    Mr. Bera. Great. Certainly, and I look forward to working 
with you and doing what we can to kind of amplify that both 
here within the diaspora but also within India.
    Thank you. And I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Dr. Bera. I'd like to now 
yield to Dr. McCormick.
    Mr. McCormick. Thank you. Thanks for taking time out of 
your busy schedule to be with us here today.
    As a youth minister for 20 years and as a father of seven 
this is a very near and dear subject to my heart. As a guy 
who's seen people been brought in to the ER after being 
trafficked it's even more sobering to me.
    I'm always worried that we get it wrong in the government, 
though, that we're not doing things that are effective. We're 
just doing things that end up being messaging pieces because we 
care.
    Sometimes churches do the same thing, right, where we 
donate a bunch of money and then we say, look, we helped, and 
somebody bought a Ferrari and nobody actually got any downwind 
consequence from what we sacrificed for.
    In your opinion, since you're the expert--that's why you're 
here--what do you think we have done right and what have we 
done wrong or we could do better into the future as we're 
trying to solve this very complex issue, which, when you're 
dealing with foreign countries, as anybody who's been overseas 
multiple times would know, in the military even when you have 
force it's hard to get things done.
    And I got a friend of mine who's a merc who does child 
retrieval overseas of child trafficked people, over a hundred 
women so far, and it is a complex business, and I'm not sure we 
have a cornerstone on all the things we could do right. What 
can we do better?
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. Thank you. That's a really good question.
    What do we do right? I think that when we develop our 
country engagement strategies, again, in consultation with our 
regional bureaus in the State Department, with our embassies 
abroad, and with our stakeholders--our left behind parents who 
provide a very valuable input--when a government is--recognizes 
that they have a problem, when they want to do better, it's 
helping them identify what steps they can take and how we can 
support them in doing that.
    So whether there's judicial training, whether it's law 
enforcement training, and trying to locate missing children--
all of those steps--I think one of the things that we could do 
better, which, again, is a priority is drawing on the 
experience and resources not just at the State Department, not 
just of our law enforcement agencies that can provide training 
and expertise to their counterparts, but, again, looking very 
broadly at who's doing what and who can be part of this 
equation, who can help resolve some of these challenges, again, 
left behind parents are a very valuable resource and provide 
very valuable information.
    But it's also raising awareness, helping get the word out, 
and I think, as was mentioned earlier, humanizing the issue so 
that foreign governments understand the cost to the children 
and to their families.
    I was very moved, as we all were in the Office of 
Children's Issues, when a mother whose child was returned from 
a foreign country sent us a video of their return at the 
airport.
    It wasn't just the mother and child. It was the entire 
family, the little girl's friends, her classmates, and you 
understand how this impacts not just one family, not just a 
nuclear family, but an extended family and a neighborhood and a 
community and I think helping raise awareness to that fact is 
something that we should all be doing.
    Mr. McCormick. I apologize for not being here during your 
opening remarks and perhaps you've already covered this but 
what--if you could single out two or three countries that 
specifically have been egregious in their behavior or their 
inability or resistance to cooperating I would like you to name 
them.
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. That's a good question. I think our 
report--even the cited countries, the countries that we have 
cited in our report that I have visited, at least, have wanted 
to cooperate. But they need guidance. They need support. They 
need help in figuring out what to do.
    Obviously, there are countries that are totally not 
cooperative, Russia being one of them, and there are other 
countries where we do not have diplomatic relations, such as 
Syria, where any case is even more challenging because of that, 
because we have to work through third parties to try to get 
information.
    Those are the countries that are extremely difficult and 
not cooperative on anything. But, again, fortunately, we often 
do not have many cases, If any, there as well.
    Mr. McCormick. That makes sense. I imagine the majority 
would be south of the border and in those countries. Is that 
correct?
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. I think our countries in Latin America, 
the majority of whom are Hague treaty partners, even those that 
we have cited as being noncompliant my experience talking to 
their governments has been--they do want to do better. They 
want to do better.
    Mr. McCormick. I was referring to volume rather than 
actually----
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. Oh, volume. Oh, yes. Oh, absolutely. 
You're absolutely right.
    Mr. McCormick. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
    And with that, I yield.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Doc.
    Ms. Jacobs?
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
being here.
    First, I would just like to acknowledge my constituent, 
Astrid Johnson, who's here in the audience. We're going to hear 
her story in the second panel. But thank you so much for being 
here and for your advocacy.
    I want to followup on the question that my colleague, Dr. 
Bera, asked around this question of domestic abuse. In 2020, 
the official guide to good practice on the Hague Conventions' 
grave risk exception was published and it clarifies that this 
exception does not require, for example, that the child be the 
direct or primary victim of physical harm If there is 
sufficient evidence that because of a risk of harm directed to 
a taking parent there is a grave risk to the child.
    Last year, actually, one of my constituents fled another 
country to the United States, fled another country to escape 
her abusive husband, who eventually filed a Hague Convention 
petition to obtain custody of their two children.
    So I just want to ask you--I know you said the 
recommendation is you tell people to avail themselves of the 
services here in the United States. I think we know that those 
aren't always perfect so--and as I've said, in the guidelines 
that actually this is supposed to be taken in account.
    So how do you view this grave risk exception? What steps 
are you taking to ensure that that mechanism it provides 
sufficient protection and how have you made sure we're playing 
a constructive role in ensuring that these guidelines are 
implemented as intended?
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. Thank you for that. That's--this is an 
issue that is of concern, I mean, obviously, not just to us but 
to the entire international community that works on the Hague 
Convention. It's something that is frequently discussed.
    With regard to 13(b), the exception for grave risk to a 
child, which is intended to be used in exceptional cases, 
obviously, domestic violence against a parent can affect the 
child. We all know that.
    The Convention talks about returning the child to their 
habitual residence, not necessarily to the care of the other 
parent, although often that parent does have custodial rights--
usually always does.
    But one of the--one of the trends that has become 
incredibly important in these cases, especially when there's 
concerns about domestic violence, is direct judicial 
communication.
    When I worked in the Office of Children's Issues previously 
this was a foreign concept in many countries. In fact, in many 
civil law countries judges were prohibited from speaking to 
other judges about a case.
    With the creation of a Hague network--a Hague judge network 
of experienced judges around the world in all the different 
countries--partner countries--this has encouraged and 
facilitated direct communications between judges.
    So, for example, a judge hearing a case in a foreign 
country who has concerns about the possibility or the 
allegations of domestic violence can speak to a judge, in this 
case in the United States, to say what protective measures will 
be put into place.
    If I order this child returned what kinds of protective 
measures would be put into place to protect the parent and the 
child, and that's something that has been very useful in 
resolving these cases consistent with the Convention, returning 
the child to their habitual residence, while still respecting 
the protection of a victim of domestic violence.
    Ms. Jacobs. And I appreciate that and I know it's a very 
tricky part of this. I guess--in the case of my constituent 
they fled another country to the United States and, obviously, 
we know whereas the U.S. judicial system is imperfect in some 
other countries there's not even a judicial system that 
addresses domestic violence or takes it as a crime.
    So how would that work in the case where you're fleeing 
from a country like that to the United States?
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. The judge in the United States might be 
put--would be put into contact, could be put into contact with 
a judge in the other foreign country to talk through and base--
and will make their ruling based on that discussion based on 
what they learn and based on their own--they're the judge. They 
can make these decisions.
    Ms. Jacobs. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Ms. Jacobs.
    Just let me ask you briefly, you know, when you talk about 
a resolved case, we had a case of Bindu Phillips, who was from 
just north of my district in New Jersey. Her two boys were 
abducted when they were at the age of eight.
    The police did a full investigation--the Plainsboro police 
department, and she actually testified at previous hearings 
that I've had, and it was criminality all over the place. He 
ripped off everything, stole everything, left her penniless 
and, above all--and this is all that mattered to her--abducted 
their two children, Albert and Alfred.
    For years she tried to regain some kind of contact. Failed 
every time. She actually went there and discovered that he had 
so poisoned those two boys against her--parental alienation 
certainly can be defined as a poisoning of a child's mind 
against the left behind parent--so much so that they did not 
want to see her.
    He lied about those to--about her, Bindu Phillips, and now 
they've aged out. They're 23 and even one will be coming here 
to United States to go to school. He does want to see her.
    I've never seen a more broken woman. She has a deep faith 
and she just prays for her children and even for her husband, 
despite the fact that he kidnaped her children and I'm 
wondering, you know, does that inform--like, when we're talking 
to the Indian leadership, and I even--when Prime Minister Modi 
was here I had met with the Ambassador with her and asked for 
his intervention. Got none. Then when Modi was here briefly had 
her talk to him and we gave him a letter and nothing happened 
from that.
    You know, I find that appalling. You know, when somebody 
comes and says, here's a true injustice that has happened and 
he turns a blind eye the way the prime minister did I have 
concerns and we all should.
    But Bindu Phillips continues to this day to be heartbroken 
in the extreme like so many of the left behind parents, If not 
all of them, and I'm wondering how that is looked at.
    I mean, when you talk to the Indian government please bring 
up her case, because when she went over there even some of the 
in-laws were talking about taking legal action against her. She 
is the most gentle, empathetic, kind-hearted woman you could 
ever meet who just loved her chill and loved her husband. She 
was broken by that, too. She never saw that coming.
    So If you could respond to that, and then I have another 
brief question. Today, Kyle O'Malley, who is also a resident of 
New Jersey, is filing another appeal in Brazil in his Hague 
case to return his two and a half year old daughter, Gia, to 
her place of habitual residence, which is New Jersey. He has 
won in one court in Brazil, then got a mixed review in a second 
and now he's appealing it to the third.
    What's troubling--it's all troubling but what's an 
egregious, I think, manifestation of a judge's viewpoint, two 
of the judges in their statements explaining their decision 
against the case--his case--said that they believe that the 
Hague is outdated.
    It's an outdated method for resolving international 
parental child abduction cases and does not apply anymore. 
These are two judges making these statements in Brazil.
    Have you had any discussions with the central authority in 
Brazil about Kyle O'Malley and his daughter and what can be 
done to remedy that malpractice on the part of those judges?
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. So, on your first point, I think Ms. 
Phillips' case definitely underscores the pain, the suffering, 
the trauma, that not just parents but their extended families, 
their communities, face in these cases.
    When I have met--before I meet with foreign government 
officials I very often, with support from my colleagues in the 
Office of Children's Issues, meet with the left--some of the 
left behind parents and then raise their cases with the 
government as examples of the problems that not just one or two 
parents are facing but any parent who has a child taken to that 
country has experienced because I think it's so important that 
my government interlocutors in foreign countries understand the 
human cost, the human suffering that is incurred by these 
cases.
    So that is something that I try to do on a routine basis, 
and, yes, I will raise--I raise any case that demonstrates the 
systemic problems in a country because I think that's important 
to put a human face on it.
    As far as Kyle O'Malley, I'm afraid I'm not intimately 
familiar with his case. I'd be happy to discuss it with your 
office to see where we we're going. I am dismayed that two 
judges have reportedly said that this does not apply or that 
the Convention is outdated. Clearly, we have more work to do in 
Brazil.
    Ms. Wild. Just one followup. We do know, I guess, on a 
brighter, hopefully, more optimistic note that the number of 
international child--parental child abductions has declined 
over the last decade.
    I just want to ask you about the Children's Passport 
Issuance Alert Program and whether that has been something that 
has markedly contributed to the prevention of abductions.
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. We, certainly, like to think it has. We 
believe it has. The Children's Passport Issuance Alert Program 
is one way that a parent can flag their child's--flag their 
child's name in our system so that If anyone, the other parent 
or somebody else, applies for a passport it puts a hold on that 
processing, that application so that we can look at who has 
legitimate rights to apply for that child's passport.
    It does not necessarily prevent the issuance of a passport 
but it puts a hold on it so we can examine the custody orders, 
who has the legitimate permission to apply for that child's 
passport, and If the applying passport does not have it then, 
obviously, the passport--because of our two-parent signature 
requirement it plays into that, that If one parent has not 
given their consent and does not plan to then that passport 
will not be issued.
    Ms. Wild. Assuming the child has a passport will that flag 
that a parent might put onto the system be in operation at--
when another parent--the other parent tries to remove the child 
from the country?
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. No, because once the passport--If the 
passport has already been issued it will not stop the child 
from departing, which is why we very much appreciate the 
Goldman Act's creation of the prevent abduction program.
    This is where we can stop abductions from happening. A 
parent can enter their custody order with us. We share that 
with Customs and Border Protection.
    The child's information goes into the data base and they 
can then be stopped at the airport If they're trying to leave 
through a port of--an airport port of entry.
    This makes a difference. In any given year we enter about 
200-plus children's names into that program and that does make 
a difference.
    I read every day--every morning we get the overnight duty 
report and part of that is the report from our prevention 
officers as to the number of phone calls they've fielded from 
parents but also calls from local law enforcement wanting to 
know whether a child can leave or If there's something going 
on, as well as from the ports of entry.
    We have two officers who sit out at the National Targeting 
Center and work side by side with Customs and Border Protection 
to try to make those--to stop those abductions from happening 
in the first place.
    Ms. Wild. Are there behaviors that the officers are taught 
to look for? In case there isn't a custody order that's been 
put on file are there behaviors that they are taught to look 
for?
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. You know, I would defer to my colleagues 
in Homeland Security on that.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you. I had a feeling I was a little afar 
with that. Thank you.
    Mr. Smith. Just one--I have a lot of other questions, which 
I'll submit for the record, but just one final.
    As you know, Jeffery Morehouse is testifying and he has 
done an amazing job for everyone else but still has not been 
able to secure even visitation for his son, Mochi. 2010 his 
beloved son was abducted to Japan.
    We have a situation in Japan--we have a situation where, 
you know, he has won court cases. One of them was in 2010--2014 
and 2017. He still has no access.
    Can you prioritize his case as a--one, because he's such a 
tremendous advocate for everyone else including himself, his 
own son, but it seems to me Japan's got to resolve this. I 
mean, talk about egregious case. If you could speak to that.
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. I fully share your appreciation for all 
that Mr. Morehouse does on behalf of left behind parents around 
the world and with a special focus on Japan and we appreciate 
working with him on these issues.
    Again, one of the things that we do when a child who has 
been abducted to Japan becomes an adult, reaches age 18 or 
older, at age 18 we seek to contact them to send them a letter 
to let them know that they are now an adult U.S. citizen with 
the benefits of being a citizen and we also try to put them in 
touch with their left behind parent. So that we offer to 
facilitate that communication.
    In some instances it's very difficult to locate the 
individual. We make our best--we do our best efforts to send 
those messages as many places as possible in hopes of reaching 
them.
    But, ultimately, once the person--you mentioned parental 
alienation and the fact that often these children have had no 
contact with their left behind parent for so many years, and 
while some are eager and interested at that point in 
maintaining and establishing contact, others it's hard because 
they have been told all sorts of things.
    So we try to do--we do that in every case in Japan where a 
child reaches the age of 18 and becomes an adult.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you. If you could really prioritize his 
case because I--how many times have you testified even here, 
Jeffery? He's been at the United Nations. He's been all over 
the world and has met with Japanese interlocutors as well.
    And I've raised his case. I went to Japan, raised his case, 
and it's, like, I get blank stares. And it's just--you know, 
justice delayed--this isn't even delayed. This is denied. So 
please. OK. Thank you.
    I'd like to now thank you for your testimony and I look 
forward to work with you, going forward, and for that meeting 
in August I look forward to it.
    Ms. Bernier-Toth. Thank you.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
    I'd like to now welcome our second panel to the witness 
table, beginning first with the very distinguished witnesses, 
including Jeffery Morehouse. He's an award-winning film maker 
and volunteers much of his time as executive director of Bring 
Abducted Children Home.
    Bring Abducted Children Home is a nonprofit organization 
dedicated to the immediate return of internationally abducted 
children being wrongfully detained in Japan.
    He also strives to end Japan's human rights violations of 
denying children unfettered access to both parents. Bring 
Abducted Children Home works to increase public awareness 
through outreach on the crisis of abduction. He collaborates 
with the an alliance of international partners working to end 
abduction.
    And I mentioned a moment ago and he has been, you know, 
tenacious in arguing for access and, hopefully, to reclaim 
custody of his child, Mochi. But he works for everyone else too 
in such a selfless way.
    And, Jeffery, want to thank you for that leadership. It is 
extraordinary. As I mentioned a moment ago, you've brought this 
message everywhere including to the United Nations frequently 
to try to get them to put more of an oar into the water to get 
more done. Thank you.
    We then will hear from Dr. Noelle Hunter, who is clinical 
assistant professor of political science at the University of 
Alabama in Huntsville Department of Philosophy and Political 
Science where she teaches courses on U.S. Government, public 
policy, and international relations.
    She is the founder and director of the International Child 
Abduction Prevention and Research Office at the University of--
in Alabama, in Huntsville and advances data-informed solutions 
to the global problem of international parental child 
abduction. It's an interdisciplinary research and practice 
initiative to improve prevention, response, and resolution.
    Dr. Noelle Hunter is also co-founder and president emeritus 
of the iStand Parent Network, Incorporated--that's when I first 
met her--a nongovernmental organization that empowers parents 
to recover their children from international parental child 
abduction and advocates for public policy reform to prevent and 
end this crime against children and against families.
    Dr. Hunter co-founded, like I said, the iStand Parent 
Network and recovered her daughter successfully from abduction 
to Mali in the year 2014.
    We will then hear from Ms. Patricia Apy, who has been 
partner in the Paras, Apy & Reiss since 1996, a professional 
corporation specializing in the practice of family law in New 
Jersey.
    Ms. Apy's area of expertise is in complex international 
interState family litigation. Ms. Apy has litigated, been 
qualified as an expert witness, and consulted on international 
family disputes throughout the world in many places including 
Pakistan, where it is a very, very challenging place to be in 
that court.
    She frequently consults and is regularly qualified as an 
expert on issues related to application of religiously based 
family law systems. She speaks throughout the United States on 
family dispute resolution in both Hague and non-Hague countries 
and in assessing risk factors for international child 
abductions.
    She has also conducted over a thousand hours of continuing 
legal education for the Judge Advocate General Corps and for 
our armed services, and I would just point out when we have 
worked on a number of military service members who have had 
their children abducted it was Patricia Apy who led the way not 
only with the Pentagon but also with Congress in showing the 
way and forward when bad advice was being tendered by JAGs, 
which led to worsening the situation. She has been a leader in 
educating the military on this.
    And I would just say, finally, when we wrote the Sean and 
David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention Act and 
it took 5 years, as I mentioned a moment ago, to finally get 
enacted into law--passed the House twice, sat in the Senate and 
languished, we finally got it into law--the person who provided 
unbelievable expert insight as to what we should include to 
make the difference was Patricia Apy.
    So thank you for that, and she's working with us on our new 
bill. So thank you.
    Mr. Morehouse?

   STATEMENT OF JEFFERY MOREHOUSE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BRING 
                     ABDUCTED CHILDREN HOME

    Mr. Morehouse. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member 
Wild, and the committee for inviting me here today to share my 
personal experience and my expertise on the ongoing crisis and 
crime of international parental child abduction.
    I also want to acknowledge all of the parents and 
supporters that showed up in person today at the hearing as 
well as our partners internationally that are watching this 
live all around the world with a specific focus on Japan.
    Bring Abducted Children Home is a nonprofit organization 
dedicated to the immediate return of internationally abducted 
children being wrongfully detained in Japan and strives to end 
Japan's human rights violation of denying parents unfettered 
access to their children and children to their parents.
    We also work with other organizations on the larger goal of 
resolving international parental child abduction worldwide. I'm 
a founding partner in the Coalition to End International 
Parental Child Abduction along with Dr. Noelle Hunter and other 
partners, including one that's here in the room today, uniting 
organizations to work passionately to end international 
parental kidnaping of children through advocacy and public 
policy reform.
    Internationally I collaborate with an alliance of 
representatives and organizations in Australia, Canada, France, 
Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United 
States, working together to end parental child abduction to and 
within Japan.
    According to the U.S. Government there have been more than 
500 U.S. children kidnaped to Japan since 1994. Japan is 
internationally known as a black hole for child abduction. A 
signatory to the Hague Abduction Convention since 2014, Japan 
betrays its obligation to return victims and guarantee rights 
of access.
    As a senior embassy of Japan official informed me in a May 
2018 meeting, they leave it up to the kidnaping parent. It's 
estimated that 150,000 children per year and 3 million over 20 
years are victims of loss of access to a parent in Japan.
    This would include American parents living there who 
continue to be robbed of parental rights by Japan's single 
custody laws. The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child 
States children have the right to maintain a relationship and 
direct and regular contact with both parents. Japan fails to 
honor this and they are a signatory of this Convention.
    Last year on October 13th I briefed the U.N. Human Rights 
Committee in Geneva, highlighting key points from our 
multinational multi-NGO report emphasizing the traumatic impact 
on abducted children and parents and called on the committee to 
end the ongoing suffering. Hold the government of Japan 
accountable.
    In their concluding observations the committee--they wrote 
the committee is concerned by reports received regarding 
frequent cases of parental child abduction, domestic and 
international, and a lack of adequate response by the State 
party, Japan.
    The Goldman Act was signed into law 9 years ago in August 
2014. Since then there have been at least 10 hearings, and I 
think I've attended all of them, to get the State Department on 
board with holding foreign governments accountable and 
increasing reunifications and returns.
    They've demonstrated through three administrations little 
true commitment to do this. Twenty-three-year-old General 
Accounting Office reports on international parental child 
abduction shockingly illustrate the same entrenched resistance.
    On December 2d, 2009, former Assistant Secretary Bernard 
Aronson testified to the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission 
hearing--Chairman Smith, I think, was chairman at that point, 
too, in that hearing--and he said--and I'm going to quote his 
exact words--``The current system to secure the return of these 
abducted American children does not work and will not work 
unless it's changed profoundly.
    I do not doubt the sincerity or the dedication of the 
professionals at the State Department who have led in the 
responsibility for this problem.
    But they do not have the tools or the power to do their job 
effectively and unless Congress gives them the power and tools 
we will be back here in 5 years or 10 years with another set of 
hearings and another group of parents with broken hearts and 
devastated dreams, and we'll be making the same statements that 
we are making here today,'' end quote.
    Congress provided these tools in 2014. They were not used 
as intended. Now is the time to enhance them and be 
prescriptive with how they are used.
    Empower the Office of Children's Issues to be more 
effective in addressing international parental child abduction.
    Establish a Presidentially appointed Senate-confirmed 
Ambassador-at--large to monitor and combat child abductions who 
reports directly to the Secretary of State.
    Standardize the process of making welfare and whereabouts 
visits requests so the process continues automatically and 
persistently every 3 months after the initial request until the 
nonabducting parent requests in writing for it to stop.
    Require the Office of Children's Issues to work in close 
liaison with the Department of Justice to enhance a whole of 
government response instead of agencies and departments 
cocooned in silos.
    Expand the annual reporting on international parental child 
abduction to include a full accounting for all kidnaped 
children, not just open cases. This is vital.
    As noted in their annual report the Department of State 
considers a case resolved and, quote, ``closed'' for the 
following reasons: a judicial or administrative authority has 
complied with the Convention and determined not to return the 
child under the provisions of the Convention, and I'll just 
comment on that.
    It's interpretive. The Hague Convention is an interpretive 
agreement. There's no international body that punishes 
countries for failing to uphold the basic terms and agreements 
of the Hague Abduction Convention. So it's interpretive when 
these foreign countries create these judicial rulings to not 
return kidnaped U.S. children.
    Second reason--they close these cases and consider them 
resolved. Parents reach a voluntary arrangement for the child 
to remain. As the chairman mentioned, there's considerable 
pressure on parents with these cases as they go on.
    So we do not know If this is a pure reason that the case is 
resolved and closed. But it's closed in the report. We need to 
understand why these cases are closed. It will illuminate and 
illustrate real patterns with countries.
    The third reason they'll close cases the left behind parent 
withdrew the application or request. Now, there may be 
legitimate reasons for that. There can also be a lot of 
pressure.
    I know cases in Japan where there's intense pressure for 
parents to withdraw their application and they're dangled with 
a carrot, baited that they'll get some sort of judicial process 
that turns out to be not enforceable, and this is common in 
other countries as well. But we need to know why these cases 
are being closed.
    Four, the left behind parent could not be located by 
Children's Issues for more than a year. This one's always been 
puzzling to me. I know a lot of parents. I have been doing this 
for, unfortunately, 13 years and I know Dr. Hunter knows a lot 
of parents, too.
    I also know a lot of parents that do not know who the heck 
their country officer is anymore. They know me, as Ms. Bernier-
Toth mentioned, because I engage with them frequently.
    But a lot of parents do not know. So we need to know, you 
need to know, when cases are being closed because there has not 
been communication, because I can assure you 99.9 percent of 
parents still want to know where their children are. They want 
response and action.
    So maybe there needs to be a better effort to locate them 
If they are closing a case for this reason. But let's see the 
data on this.
    And, last, when a left behind parent or child passes away. 
Now, this does happen. I know of two cases. I know of a case 
where a kidnaping parent is deceased--two, actually--and I know 
one where the left behind parent, unfortunately, passed away.
    But I would still think it's very informative to 
disaggregate this information so Congress and the American 
public can understand what's actually going on here when cases 
are resolved.
    Additionally, cases are closed when the victim reaches 18. 
Now, we do not do that when stranger abduction occurs, do we? 
We do not just suddenly say, well, they're 18. Wherever they 
are we'll just forget about them. Why are exceptions made for 
victims of international parental child abduction?
    When an abduction case is closed without the child being 
returned, as I said it's essential to know why. This is going 
to create a clearer picture of the IPCA crisis with each 
country and a more useful tool in prevention cases in family 
courts considering travel restraints.
    I'd just respond to something briefly that Representative 
McCormick asked a question of the previous panelist on the 
worst offenders, and I did not quite hear a clear response to 
his question.
    So I'll just reiterate what one of our predecessors, 
Ambassador Susan Jacobs, said in a hearing in this committee in 
2015.
    She was asked the very same question and she responded 
without hesitation. The top three worst offenders are Brazil, 
India, and Japan. Her words.
    So this is going to create a clearer picture of the IPCA 
crisis with each country, a more useful tool in prevention 
cases in family courts considering these travel restraints that 
are essential to get children into the prevent abduction 
program.
    Somebody mentioned and asked about the Child Passport 
Issuance Alert Program. That's an interesting and valuable 
tool. The prevent abduction program is even more invaluable and 
important. But it requires a travel restraint order from a 
court.
    One of the problems that I see--and I serve as an expert 
witness in prevention cases and Patricia Apy is an attorney, an 
expert in this area, and she can speak to this probably more--
but I have to spend time explaining to the court the numerous 
reasons why the State Department resolves the case without the 
child being returned.
    If you disaggregate these numbers it will be very clear--
and a couple of you mentioned you were former attorneys or 
practicing attorneys--it will be very clear in the numbers that 
children are not coming back from these countries, that will 
then help with prevention so that we do not have to spend time 
explaining to the court what this report really says.
    The way the reports are written often give a false 
impression that the kidnaped child will come home, that the 
parent can rely on the Hague Abduction Convention, a bilateral 
agreement or respect for a U.S. court order and our laws.
    It gets misinterpreted that If a country is not placed on 
the noncompliant list that they are compliant. A tiered report 
with disaggregated data modeled after the Trafficking in 
Persons Report, or TIP Report, will help address prevention 
concerns and If used with correct intent may provide incentives 
for foreign countries to make changes.
    Certainly, the State Department wants to prevent future 
abductions so they ought to be more than willing to provide 
this information.
    We worked extensively to try and get them to release data 
and a couple of years ago they did publish the number of cases 
outgoing from the U.S. and the number returned by a year.
    But they were unwilling to disaggregate the data that we 
are asking for now. So we know that's coming. You mentioned 
pending legislation, and appreciate that. So require--the next 
point I want to get across is, you know, require the State 
Department to use multiple tools that are already in the 
Goldman Act.
    Hearing after hearing this has been addressed both in the 
Senate and the House in 2018, in particular, and they've 
declined again. They are entrenched in using demarches for 
countries who fail to repatriate and reunite us with our 
children.
    State views demarches as important and meaningful when year 
after year they fail to move beyond them and foreign countries 
still do not improve. Clearly, demarches alone are about as 
valuable as junk mail.
    Let's move beyond them and use substantive tools. In the 
Senate's annual resolution Countering International Parental 
Child Abduction month they again noted the Supreme Court of the 
United States has recognized that family abduction is a form of 
child abuse with potentially devastating consequences for a 
child, which may include negative impacts on the physical and 
mental and well being of the child and may cause a child to 
experience a loss of community and stability leading to 
loneliness, anger, and fear of abandonment.
    Our cases are not custody disputes. The impact from this 
crime on the victims is lifelong. In last week's article in The 
Age by journalist Eryk Bagshaw, who's written multiple times on 
this issue, Sasumi Wataya bravely shared his experience.
    He says he was beaten when he asked about his father. Then 
his last name was secretly changed, cutting him off from all 
future contact. ``I lost my identity,'' he said. The pain that 
this Japanese system causes children is beyond description.
    Our coalition leadership has met with stakeholders in the 
Department of Justice and the FBI many, many times. One 
consistent point that we all agree on is the sentencing 
guideline under 18 U.S.C. 1204.
    The International Parental Kidnaping Crime Act should be 
higher in order for this crime to be taken more seriously. The 
sentencing guideline for a stranger abduction is up to 20 
years.
    It's a moderate and reasonable change to increase it under 
the statute from three to 10 years for--and this is quoting 
from the statute--``whoever removes a child from the United 
States or attempts to do so or retains a child who has been in 
the United States outside of the United States with the intent 
to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights.''
    Currently, the criminal statute excludes 16-and 17-year-
olds. In contrast, most States set the age of majority at 18. 
It's moderate and reasonable to amend this to define a child as 
a person who has not yet attained the age of 18.
    Existing Federal law and the Department of Justice 
guidelines for missing persons to be entered and maintained 
into the National Crime Information Center, or NCIC, data base 
are routinely disregarded by local, State, and Federal law 
enforcement.
    Parents can be ignored completely or incorrectly informed 
that they need a criminal charge or a custody order. If they're 
lucky enough to get a response that leads to an entry into the 
NCIC an officer or an agent in the future who inherits the case 
might decide just to remove it without the child ever being 
located.
    The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has 
acknowledged this, that cases are routinely removed without the 
missing persons being located. In talking to our friends from 
the State Department before the hearing they also said yes, 
they see the same thing.
    Starting this past summer I spent 10 months going back and 
forth with a detective in the Seattle area who inherited my 
case who decided that my son was no longer missing when he 
turned 18. He somehow magically had free will even though he 
had spent the past 13 years being kidnaped.
    So he removed him from this data base. This meant that 
NCMEC, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 
also had to remove his missing persons poster, taking away a 
valuable, valuable tool to try and locate my son and reunite.
    I shared with this detective the requirements under Federal 
law and Department of Justice guidelines. One of NCMEC's 
attorneys spoke with the officer to offer technical guidance.
    I engaged an FBI agent at the violent crimes against 
children unit, who I know, and a staff member at the Amber 
Alert Training and Technical Assistance Program for their 
views.
    We all agreed we're all on the same page--this is what 
should have been done. But not this detective. How many times 
it's been repeated across America where parents of 
internationally kidnaped children are not receiving this bare 
minimum required under Federal law assistance.
    The solution is simple and in alignment with the 
stakeholders. Require the FBI to enter each case of a missing 
child into the National Crime Information Center data base and 
each missing person who has been removed but not located should 
be reentered.
    The Interpol yellow notices identifying my son as a missing 
person was also removed by the FBI and the--from the office in 
Seattle although he remains missing.
    Let's fix this, too. Require the FBI to enter or reenter 
and maintain each case with an Interpol yellow notice. Victims 
of IPCA should remain in both the NCIC and Interpol until they 
are returned or after reaching the age of 21.
    Request the removal in person to a U.S. consular official 
or Federal law enforcement officer. Mandating the FBI to 
provide these tools will help victims better understand what 
has occurred to them and the resources and rights that they are 
entitled to as American citizens.
    I was reminded of this in January of this year when a 
victim contacted us insisting they had never been kidnaped. 
This was a State Department verified case.
    But it was this person's belief because that's what the 
abductor taught them. If a parent is able to locate and 
maintain first contact, hopefully, it goes well. But so often 
it does not.
    Reunification staff at National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children has previously shared with us that most IPCA 
victims are taught by their kidnappers that the other parent 
does not want them, they're dangerous and harmful, they're 
dead, or that the other parent is unknown.
    Maintaining the NCIC entry and Interpol yellow notices will 
be useful tools in aiding authorities to support parents in 
locating and reuniting with their missing children.
    Do we want to be back here in a year, in 5 years, in 10, 
discussing what needs to be done? We know what needs to be 
done. Amend these laws. Let's do this.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Morehouse follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much.
    For the record, we do--we have incorporated your 
recommendations into our draft bill and I cannot thank you 
enough. All three of you have provided unbelievably incisive 
insights for us as to what needs to be done.
    So your testimony and your words, your wisdom, has not gone 
unacted upon. So we will push this hard to try to get it 
enacted into law. So thank you.
    Mr. Morehouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Smith. Dr. Hunter?

 STATEMENT OF DR. NOELLE HUNTER, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL CHILD 
            ABDUCTION PREVENTION AND RESEARCH OFFICE

    Dr. Hunter. Good afternoon, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Thank you for the opportunity to come again before this 
distinguished committee.
    I'd like to request that my statement be entered into the 
congressional Record in full.
    Mr. Smith. Without objection so ordered.
    Dr. Hunter. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Wild, and members of this 
distinguished committee, in the decades since my own daughter's 
abduction and return I have had the privilege to be a voice for 
victimized children and families.
    I have felt this weighty privilege of speaking for so many 
parents who have looked to you, Mr. Chairman, looked to 
Congress, for leadership and oversight to require the State 
Department, the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland 
Security, and all of their respective agencies that my 
colleague spoke of who are charged with this issue to enforce 
the laws concerning international parental child abduction, 
kidnapping, and wrongful retention of American children held 
abroad.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out as we can 
all see that the State Department left this meeting immediately 
after the testimony of the Special Advisor. This is their 
standard practice and it transmits a message to us about 
priorities in word and in deed and I would just like to mention 
that.
    I am the director of the International Parental Child 
Abduction Research and Prevention Office at the University of 
Alabama in Huntsville, and, Mr. Chairman, if I can just say the 
title of that office is a direct acclamation to you and to the 
work that you've done on this issue.
    We thought very carefully about what we would call this 
office and it's not coincidental that ICAPRO, the name of this 
office, is a reflection of ICAPRA, the Goldman Act that you 
wrote, authored, and shepherded to passage and are still 
seeking the robust implementation of.
    And so I honor you, sir. I thank you so much for that and I 
want you to know that as I've been working on this issue now 
for 10 years while my daughter was abducted and came home--and 
has come home you have been a beacon for us and at the times 
when I was tempted to just go on about our lives because my 
daughter is home it was your work, my dear colleague and 
friend, Jeffery's, work and importantly these children that 
kept me going.
    And I would like to say that there are two returned 
children in the office--are in this chamber today. I see Miyu 
and Amani in the back, my dear girls who will be joining us for 
a survivor camp that my organization hosts because once the 
children do come home they still need help. They still need 
resources.
    And so it is in that sense and in that vein that I also 
represent iStand Parent Network. IStand empowers parents to 
return their children from international parental abduction and 
advocates for legal and public policy reform to prevent and end 
this awful crime against children and families.
    And one more thing about ICAPRO before I move into my 
formal remarks. This is the first university-based enterprise 
to drive research and data-driven solutions to the problem of 
international parental child abduction.
    There's not another entity like this that exists and we 
look forward to working with Congress to provide different 
perspective research and data-driven information that can help 
ameliorate this problem.
    I am a survivor, sir, like my brave and beautiful daughter, 
Muna, who on Christmas Day of 2011 was kidnapped by her father 
from Morehead, Kentucky, to Mali, West Africa, when she was 
only 4 years old.
    Now, despite some initial delays, Mr. Chairman, I soon had 
a court order for her return, cases with the FBI, the 
Department of State's Office of Children's Issues, the National 
Center for Missing Exploited Children, and local and State 
cooperation as well.
    In the Office of Children's Issues I had frequent 
communications with my country officer--I had a great country 
officer--and a working relationship with the embassy personnel 
in Bamako.
    This is very rare but it ought not be. This ought to be 
standard practice and I appreciated the question earlier about 
what can be--by the ranking member what can be done to empower 
consulars and embassies abroad. There is so much more that can 
be done there.
    I do work closely with Members of Congress. In my own case 
to bring my--I did work closely with Members of Congress in my 
own case, Senator Rand Paul and especially my beloved senator, 
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and your colleague, 
Representative Hal Rogers.
    The latter two stood shoulder to shoulder with me in a 
creative pressure campaign for nearly 3 years, both directly 
engaged with the State Department, the FBI, and even high-
ranking officials in the Mali government.
    It was very clear, Mr. Chairman, to people on two 
continents that this Kentucky delegation was serious about its 
constituent's well being and her need to be home.
    I was reunited with my daughter on July 11th, 2014, in 
which can only be described as a whole of government approach, 
which is why she's currently home, and this week she's 
completing her last week of high school freshman year.
    Every entity that could be mobilized for my daughter was 
and we worked cooperatively. Why cannot that be the case for 
other children, sir? Our government has the resources. It has 
the capacity. What we have to overcome is the bureaucratic 
discretion and the differential prioritization of resources.
    What could possibly be more important than America's stolen 
children? Unfortunately, my family's experience is rare and it 
should not be.
    This Nation, as I indicated, has systems, structures, 
resources, and international standing to repatriate U.S. 
children and hold nations accountable until they comply in 
releasing America's stolen children.
    Now, I've recently come to know my fellow parent John 
Sichi. John's two children were abducted from San Francisco to 
South Korea in 2019 and have yet to be returned to California. 
They were both toddlers at the time of the abduction. His son 
wasn't quite 3 years old and his daughter had just turned one--
babies.
    Despite receiving a finalized Korean supreme court Hague 
return order in February 2022 he has not been permitted to see 
his children at all. He's been cutoff from them and, as was 
indicated by my colleague, the lifelong emotional damage is 
being done day by day. It's intense.
    Since last October John has staged a protest--public 
protest in Seoul walking for hours and hours on a portable 
treadmill demonstrating the plight of every left behind parent 
who is trying--and trying to reach their children, doing 
everything they can but getting nowhere. There's a picture of 
John on his treadmill in the galley today.
    Even the Korean public are--and media are sympathetic and 
supportive of his quest. Yet, the Korean government has shown 
little regard for the Hague return order or his daily 
demonstrations for his children.
    Our nation has twice cited the Hague--this Hague partner, 
Korea, for noncompliance including this year. What I find 
remarkable and inspiring is that John has walked nearly 600 
kilometers on this treadmill and people often ask him how he 
keeps going day after day.
    Sir, his answer is always the same. How could he give up on 
his children when they need his help? This is, indeed, the 
question that parents of internationally kidnapped children ask 
and answer every day.
    The impact of Mr. Sichi's visceral metaphor cannot be 
understated. I hope we're all now thinking about John and all 
the parents who are on this treadmill exerting all of their 
heart, energy, time, money, and resources without their 
children coming home.
    And when I first learned of John's story I was filled with 
admiration for this arduous and loving tribute for his abducted 
children. That admiration quickly gave way to sorrow, empathy, 
and frustration.
    John Sichi's treadmill experience embodies those of too 
many other parents and stands in stark contrast with my whole 
of government approach leading to the response--leading to my 
daughter's return.
    But I'm not the only one, Mr. Chairman. Alissa Zagaris is 
in the audience today. Alissa returned her son, Leo, home from 
wrongful retention in Greece in 2013--in March 2013--after 20 
months of alienation and separation through her fierce devotion 
and unrelenting action and, importantly, a strong governmental 
response.
    Alissa is also a co-founder of iStand Parent Network. By 
contrast, sitting near Alissa is Samina Rahman and her son, 
Abadallah.
    Mr. Chairman, this is a special day in this chamber because 
this is the first time that Alissa and Jeffery and I and 
longtime advocates have met Abadallah. You see, Samina was on 
this treadmill for 9.5 years. She's been with iStand since the 
beginning.
    From April 2013 to December 2023 she was on the treadmill 
while the United States and India traded hollow niceties about 
resolving abductions. Over nearly a decade she watched India 
get pass after pass, demarche after hollow demarche and watched 
that nation race to the top--unfettered race to the top five 
rankings for destination countries of abduction.
    She had to watch from the United States as her small boy 
grew into a teen, as he missed years of school, and most 
tragically she had to watch her father pass away without ever 
seeing the grandson he helped to raise until his abduction.
    In the end, as was mentioned earlier, Abadallah is home 
through a voluntary return, not through the hundreds of 
thousands of dollars this mother has expended in U.S. and 
Indian courts, not through the scam where she and other 
parents, including another one in this courtroom--the scam that 
bilked her out of precious resources by someone who knew 
exactly how to exploit these loopholes in U.S. Government in 
the still fragmented post Goldman Act inefficiencies in our 
U.S. system. Knew exactly how to exploit those. And, certainly, 
and regrettably not through the help of her own government, 
Samina is sitting here today with her son because of her 
indefatigable mother's love, her sheer fortitude, her resource 
capacity, and because she, like many other parents, were moved 
to do whatever is necessary.
    How many other children yearn to be with their parent but 
whose parents do not have similar means, support, or the 
wherewithal to sustain their case through costly engagements 
with two or more governments, language barriers, and fragmented 
or nonexistent governmental responses?
    Mr. Chairman, before I offer recommendations for improving 
Federal response of Federal performance to aid victimized 
American children and their families, there's one more 
experience of a parent that I'd like to relate.
    Astrid Johnson is sitting with me today. She is here in the 
audience and she's on the treadmill. She's on the proverbial 
treadmill.
    In August 2021 Astrid's missing angels, Charlotte and 
Georgia, were abducted to and remain in Dubai by their father 
who's--by the way, who is not a resident of Dubai. He is 
Australian, and used that opportunity to take them to a country 
where he believed that he could abscond and retain these 
children unlawfully from their mother.
    Astrid has done everything that she can, expending her 
resources, obtaining an international kidnapping warrant, 
achieving favorable rulings in Dubai. The Dubai courts rejected 
the father's unfounded custody petitions and further ruled that 
it had no jurisdiction in the case.
    It's my understanding that Federal marshals are standing by 
ready to travel and execute that warrant. Her Congresswoman was 
here a little bit earlier, Representative Jacobs, and if I 
could speak to her and perhaps Ms. Johnson can speak to her 
while we are here.
    I'm very, very clear that one of the reasons that my 
daughter is home is the full court press of my congressional 
delegation. You know that, sir. You certainly do. You remember 
Senator McConnell and Chairman Rogers and Senator Paul, they 
went to bat for my daughter and Mali sent her home because all 
three of them began to intimate that they were going to move 
beyond a public statement and cast their eyes toward the United 
States' largesse--governmental largesse toward those nations. 
Put my baby on a plane and send her home. Same with David 
Goldman.
    Why cannot that still happen now? This is what I want to 
convey to her representative and to her delegation and to all 
of the representatives here.
    Congress has the power of the purse. It has the gravitas 
and it has the onus and the impetus to act justly for America's 
stolen children. Even with the mechanisms in place for Ms. 
Johnson the pace of Federal action and response to reunite her 
and her children has been too slow.
    Time, as you said, sir, so accurately is the number-one 
enemy of internationally abducted children, and as her case 
indicates inaction or slow action by the very entities charged 
with assisting this vulnerable population is enemy No. 2.
    And I discovered last night--actually this morning at 3 
a.m., Mr. Chairman, I discovered I'm on the treadmill with 
Astrid. At 3 a.m. this morning we had a call with the court in 
Abu Dhabi.
    Now, I mentioned Dubai earlier because that's where the 
father attempted to unlawfully exert a false custody petition. 
When Dubai turned him down he forum shopped and went right down 
to Abu Dhabi.
    We are on the phone at 3 a.m. on the treadmill for her to 
have to continue to spend her money and her resources to 
accomplish something that should have already been settled and 
should already have been home.
    I do not mind being on the treadmill with you but we need 
to get off, and the way that we're going to get off is for our 
government to hold nations accountable through the State 
Department and that means holding the State Department 
accountable.
    It's time for resolute action by our government to bring 
these children home. It's time for the State Department to act 
on the UAE's twice cited noncompliance, including in the 
resolution that my colleague mentioned earlier, the Senate 
resolution.
    It's time for UAE to reject the father's forum shopping and 
fake travel ban requests. It's time for the United States to 
stand with Astrid Johnson to bring Georgia and Charlotte home.
    When the Goldman Act was enacted into law in 2014 we had 
tempered expectations for its full and aggressive 
implementation. Over the past 9 years, however, even our most 
measured expectations for the State Department to fulfill its 
mandates have been disappointed.
    Instead, our children remain kidnapped in foreign nations, 
separated from their seeking parents and extended families, and 
parents remain on John Sichi's treadmill driven by a love for 
their children and a hope that our government will be true to 
what it says on paper. That's a quote from Dr. King, by the 
way.
    Mr. Chairman, it's time now to amend the Goldman Act to 
bring abducted children home. I respectfully offer the 
following recommendations to improve Federal response, prevent 
abductions, and reunite children with loving families.
    First, give Congress greater authority and oversight 
capabilities to respond to and aid constituent requests. This 
speaks to the notification. We were privileged, my colleague 
and I, to have a briefing with Foreign Affairs Committee 
staffers a few weeks ago and I posed the question to them about 
how frequent or how aware they are of the notifications that 
come to State that Ms. Bernier-Toth said. There weren't many.
    Now, that does not mean the information did not come to 
them but at what priority. And so the State Department complies 
by letter of the law by sending these written notifications to 
a Member of Congress as required by the Goldman law.
    But that privacy waiver is a challenge for us and I know 
parents in the audience have attempted to overcome this 
challenge.
    So if a parent does not sign a privacy waiver it may mean 
that that information does not get to their Member of Congress 
and even if the privacy waiver needs to be in place and stay in 
place the State Department should still be requiring 
information, still should be reporting on all the information 
necessary.
    Numerical--pardon me, numerical data can be shared about 
how many constituents have reached out to the State Department. 
That information can be shared.
    Recommendation No. 2, sir--and this speaks directly to the 
standup of ICAPRO at the University of Alabama in Huntsville--
fund the research. Congress must fund the research on 
international parental child abduction so that we can 
understand government performance and its impact on children 
and families.
    The testimony of the State Department today and over time 
makes clear the necessity of independent research. As a 
political scientist I'm keenly aware of bureaucratic discretion 
and the way in which variation in case management has occurred 
in this agency.
    I was also puzzled by the Special Advisor's comments early 
on in which she said something to the effect that, I know some 
think that withholding aid is the way to go. Respectfully, sir, 
it does not matter what we think. It does not matter what 
Congress thinks.
    The law says that there are escalating actions that must be 
taken beyond the demarche. And so research will allow and 
funded research will allow the performance of the State 
Department to emerge in view and that's how Congress can fully 
exert its oversight capacity.
    The existing research is fairly limited because the 
information we're getting is coming from the State Department, 
who has a vested interest in minimizing the extent of the 
problem and controlling the narrative. Independent research is 
necessary and Congress must fund that.
    Recommendation No. 3, fund training against relevant 
sectors to effectively educate and prepare responders, the 
legal community, and other relevant actors to consistently 
uphold the law concerning internationally kidnapped children 
and victimized families.
    I respect what the Special Advisor said earlier about the 
trainings that are occurring. What I do not know and what 
Congress does not know is the frequency, the consistency, and 
how well that training is landing.
    But I'm not sure we can make those decisions or understand 
how well that training that they bragged about is going without 
some sort of performance reporting. The annual report does not 
really--beyond, you know, a superficial discussion does not 
really talk about that training--who, what, when, where, and 
why. That is a need for research and that's a need for funded 
research.
    And, finally, help parents wage and win this costly battle 
to reunite with their victimized internationally kidnapped 
children by amending the Victims of Crime Act to include 
international parental child abduction and make legal expenses 
for the Crime Victims Fund available for parents in attempting 
to repatriate their children.
    I was fortunate to not have to expend as much money 
although my costs was high, in the thousands of dollars. I sit 
next to a colleague--I sit among parents who have spent 
hundreds of thousands of dollars.
    If the Crime Victim Act is available for children who have 
been domestically abducted why not for internationally abducted 
children, arguably whose parents would need those resources 
more?
    Now, in closing, I met a new parent today on the treadmill. 
Gabriel is here. Caleb Gaertner is here. His children Gabriel, 
Gideon, and Lydia were abducted to Belize in 2018.
    I want to be on the treadmill with him but we do not want 
to be on here indefinitely. We need to move forward. Jazlene 
Goyle is here. She is the grandmother of a reunited daughter 
and they went to considerable lengths, often in direct 
opposition to our government, to return their daughter.
    John Stefanik is here and his daughter, Camille, has been 
abducted to Costa Rica and I am appalled by Costa Rica's 
behavior in not only protecting and sanctioning the abductor 
but creating an environment in which Camille has been subjected 
to further child abuse on top of the abduction.
    Vikram Jagtiani is here and his sweet daughter, Nikita, he 
sometimes has contact with, sometimes not, and as I indicated 
Miyu and Amani are here and they're the testament to what can 
happen when parents work to return their children home.
    But all of us need you, all of us need Congress, and all of 
us need the State Department, the Justice Department, and 
Homeland Security to, again, live up to what it says on paper 
in the Goldman Act and all of the laws that came before that.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you so much. I honor you and I 
appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of these 
children.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Hunter follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Smith. Dr. Hunter, thank you so very much for your very 
eloquent testimony. Your recommendations are outstanding and we 
are--since you have conveyed this to us before this hearing, 
many of them, we're incorporating them into our reform bill and 
our update bill to the Goldman Act.
    So thank you for that and for focusing on all these 
families that are here with their precious children and 
pictures that they're holding for us to see.
    It just brings home, again, this terrible crime, this 
kidnapping, which leads to parental alienation and just--it 
harms everyone, especially the child but also in a very 
egregious way the left behind parents. So thank you for your 
leadership.
    I'd like to now yield the floor to Ms. Patricia Apy.

   STATEMENT OF PATRICIA APY, LEGAL EXPERT ON INTERNATIONAL 
                    PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION

    Ms. Apy. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Wild, and 
distinguished members, I continue to be honored to have been 
invited to return to offer testimony before the subcommittee to 
respectfully address my observations and recommendations formed 
from the perspective as an international legal practitioner.
    I'm testifying in support of enhancing the protections 
provided against the scourge of international child abduction 
and in providing assistance in the prompt repatriation of 
children and the restoration of families devastated by parental 
abduction.
    I intend to offer my observations, including referencing 
legislative proposed amendments, to the Sean and David Goldman 
International Parental Kidnapping Prevention and Return Act.
    I am stunned at the length of time it has been since we 
have reviewed and evaluated whether or not there needs to be--
there need to be revisions that reflect the world that we are 
in now and the circumstances that we have seen historically in 
the work of our government in addressing these issues.
    I provided a summary of my anticipated testimony and would 
respectfully request that it be included in the official 
record.
    Mr. Smith. Without objection.
    Ms. Apy. At the close of 2022 and early in 2023 two events 
transpired which have had a significant impact upon the way 
child abduction is viewed and addressed under international law 
as a global human rights issue and I would propose that both of 
these examples demonstrate the necessity and importance of the 
proposed amendments which are being considered and, hopefully, 
will be enacted.
    On March 17th, 2023, the International Criminal Court 
issued arrest warrants against the president of the Russian 
Federation, Vladimir Putin, and the Presidential commissioner 
for children's rights, Maria Lvova-Belova, for the war crime of 
the wrongful deportation of children from occupied areas of 
Ukraine to the Russian Federation.
    Certainly, the world could not have been surprised by the 
call to accountability of the Russian Federation and the events 
taking place in Ukraine and, indeed, you were one of the first 
before this Congress to reference the need to seek that 
accountability.
    However, the selection of the abduction of Ukrainian 
children as the identified criminal action both elevated and 
solidified a recognition of child abduction for the 
traumatizing abusive action that it genuinely is.
    Further, a careful review of the diplomatic declarations 
filed with the Hague Conference on private international law 
pursuant to the reciprocal treaty obligations of the Federation 
and Ukraine pursuant to the Convention demonstrated the Russian 
Federation, which acceded to this Convention in 2011, was 
already signaling its intention as early as July 19th of 2016 
to ignore protestations by Ukraine regarding the applicability 
of the treaty within the area it had occupied and to treat any 
allegations of international child abduction within the 
occupied territories as purely domestic issues.
    President Zelenskyy last week indicated that over 19,000 
Ukrainian children had been abducted by the Russian Federation. 
The scale of this abduction could not have been accomplished 
spontaneously. It isn't done with a plan on the back of a 
napkin. This was an orchestrated event by the same individuals 
who serve as the oversight for the central authority of the 
Russian Federation under this treaty.
    It begs the question of how those in the State Department 
who are responsible with regard to monitoring the Hague 
Abduction Convention missed the signal across the bow that this 
Convention would not be honored in those occupied territories.
    On the other side of the world, on the 12th of December 
2022 the Australian government indicated that Federal 
legislation would be enacted to clarify procedural protections 
for the purpose of ensuring that allegations of family and 
domestic violence by parents accused of having wrongfully 
removed or retained their children could be considered as a 
priority before return orders would be made for children under 
the Hague Convention.
    The Australian government described their efforts as 
providing safeguards to parents and children who assert that 
they are fleeing family domestic violence when defending 
applications brought under the Convention.
    Notably, the statute is seen to confirm that a court which 
is offered a defense to the obligation to return a child does 
not need to determine that the family violence which has been 
alleged by the taking parent has actually occurred as a 
predicate before taking it into account.
    While the Australian government provided renewed assurances 
that the legislative enactments did not impact upon its 
intention to comply with its obligations under the Hague 
Abduction Convention, among practitioners like myself there are 
serious concerns that the Australian legislation may be only 
the most recent of systemic assaults against the application 
and effectiveness of the Hague Abduction Convention.
    There is a growing belief that the prevention of the 
wrongful removal of children has been rendered more difficult 
because of the disintegration of the underlying belief that 
child abduction operates to harm children.
    As Ranking Member Wild indicated earlier in this hearing, 
this is an incredibly complicated diplomatic and international 
legal issue.
    However, there is a pathway forward. In my estimation, 
overwhelming benefits are contained in the proposed amendments 
to 22 U.S.C. 9111 to support efforts to minimize child 
abduction and provide tools to enhance the ability to return 
children who have been abducted.
    I'm going to point out those legislative initiatives I 
would as a practitioner in this field for 35 years identify as 
particularly important.
    First, the proposed amendments to the definitions and 
reporting functions of the Department of State will provide a 
more concise and understandable basis to evaluate the 
legitimate State of reciprocity, which exists among and between 
treaty partners.
    It's important to recognize that--how the report is used. 
It is not just used for congressional oversight. It's used by 
judges and lawyers daily. It is embedded in statute--State 
statutes, which assess risk of wrongful removal and return.
    As a result, it is incredibly important to judicial 
deliberation and determinations on parental access in those 
circumstances. If we do not have the ability to actually 
understand what the genuine numbers are, what the genuine 
statistics are, and if we are not all on the same page as to 
what terms such as voluntary resolution or resolution at all 
really represent then the State Department, perhaps in an 
effort to be diplomatic, are actually misleading our judges and 
parents, rendering decisions and agreements by not providing 
them genuine information upon which they can rely.
    In particular, an accurate identification of what 
constitutes a resolved case has already been discussed in the 
testimony that you've heard and will permit a better 
description and understanding of the obstacles to returning 
children who are abducted and give a picture of how many 
children are actually subject in real time to having been 
wrongfully removed or retained.
    The Special Advisor referenced case notes with regard to 
judicial determinations which had been made to resolve cases in 
answer to your question in evaluating whether or not a judicial 
determination is actually substantially in conformance with the 
treaty.
    I did not understand the answer. Case law does not--does 
not require an interpretive summary by the Department of State 
and if it's being done who's doing it.
    Where would the expertise come from to be able to evaluate 
a foreign order and indicate whether or not it complies with 
the treaty and why would you not then provide a list of cases 
in individual countries that reflect that there has been a 
judicial determination that may technically have resolved the 
case but in fact bears no relationship to the actual treaty 
obligations and the reciprocal obligations of the Hague 
Abduction Convention.
    I think it's important. I'll give an example that--Costa 
Rica is a case--is a country in which their supreme court 
recently declined to apply the Convention, establishing as a 
matter of law that when there is an application by a taking 
parent for asylum or immigration status protection on behalf of 
a child it takes priority over the treaty obligations of the 
Convention.
    Now, what's really interesting about that is I did not see 
it referenced once in the report. I think that's a big deal and 
I believe that that issue is going to be raised potentially to 
the Inter-American Court of Justice.
    It should be referenced so that judges and lawyers and 
parents who are addressing whether it's a request for a child 
to visit Costa Rica or actually addressing a case know what 
some of the legal challenges may be.
    I also listened to your question to the Special Advisor and 
the questions that were asked regarding identifying the 
difficulties in certain countries or addressing the 
difficulties and the issues of noncompliance.
    She was reluctant. She was attempting to make excuses 
even--as she said, even for the countries that they've 
identified as noncompliant and here's the rub. She does not 
represent the left behind parents.
    She represents the United States of America and so she 
ultimately is going to be acting not as an advocate in the 
classic sense of that word but as a representative of the U.S. 
Government reflecting the diplomatic priorities of the foreign 
policy of the United States.
    So here's the problem. There will always be a reluctance to 
use diplomatic tools that are available in the existing 
legislation because of the broader necessities.
    So that's the primary reason I support wholeheartedly the 
imposition of the tier system, which provides--and we have 
ample demonstration in dealing with trafficking--provides an 
objective mechanism so that any diplomat who is placed in the 
position of having to evaluate or bring accountability to the 
actions of a country will be able to say, I know you're working 
hard but this is the--this is the objective test. This places 
you in this tier. This is what is required when a country is in 
that tier.
    We have over a--nearly a decade since the original 
legislation and there has been almost no use of any of the 
enumerated sanctions available to the Secretary of State.
    We haven't even been told what the mechanism is to present 
to the Secretary the policy considerations and a request in 
order to address this, the most egregious and systemic 
violation of human rights.
    It's clear that the institutional structure of decision and 
policymaking within the Department of State makes it 
exceedingly difficult to synthesize and formulate a broad 
diplomatic strategy which unapologetically addresses the impact 
of child abduction.
    By constructing a deliberate and objective tiered system a 
mechanism to sanction recalcitrant States is created while 
still preserving diplomatic flexibility and nuance.
    The amendments proposed addressing issues of family 
violence actually began as discussions before the Tom Lantos 
Commission on Human Rights over a decade ago in which hearings 
conducted by this body under your leadership heard compelling 
and scholarly testimony addressing the tension between the 
International Child Abduction Remedies Act and the complexities 
of addressing global domestic violence.
    Unlike Australia's Federal legislation, the proposed 
amendments do not alter the language of ICARA or alter the 
responsibilities of the central authority that are met under 
the treaty.
    These legislation proposed amendments focus on providing 
objective information and practical assistance with which 
judges can quickly and effectively evaluate the protections 
genuinely available for victims of domestic violence in their 
considerations and deliberations and fashioning of 
undertakings, which will allow them also to distinguish 
pretextual arguments from genuine issues of domestic violence.
    The amendment will better facilitate the ability of a court 
to refer to objective information and assist it in deliberating 
and addressing a request for return, fashion orders for the 
organization of rights of access.
    I would note also that the Special Advisor spoke about 
judicial communication and its benefits. I cannot see where 
under the existing legal process there would be a role for 
judicial communication to serve in addressing the defense 
raised to a return under the Convention.
    In fact, the most important information for a judge to have 
would be whether or not there is available in the country from 
which the child has been removed--whether there is a 
opportunity for domestic violence protections and whether or 
not that can easily be done in the place from which the child 
has been taken. That would be the way that that would be 
addressed in incoming cases.
    Cases in which there's been allegations of domestic 
violence serving as a defense to the return of a child to the 
United States the proposed legislation provides for a referral 
to competent legal services for victims of domestic violence.
    Those who are asserting that they are victims of domestic 
violence as a means of ensuring that all information crucial to 
the court in protecting the child when a return is ordered is 
available.
    The legislation calls for a study, which will further 
amplify the life-altering impact which child abduction has upon 
its victims beyond any period of wrongful removal or retention 
and I champion the--Dr. Hunter's request that that be done with 
all deliberate speed.
    I would note the interagency meetings are--have been less 
and less effective, have occurred less frequently, and have 
done nothing to address the appalling disconnection between DOJ 
and the State Department on issues involving child abduction 
and consideration of criminal prosecution.
    It is unfathomable to have a conversation with DOJ and have 
them tell you that this is in State Department's lap and then 
talk to State Department and have them tell you it is with the 
DOJ.
    This was supposed to be addressed as part of the 
interagency issues. Ensuring the use of law enforcement 
resources and criminal prosecution to assist in the return of 
children who have been abducted swiftly and professionally 
provided has not occurred.
    This will have the additional advantage of incurring United 
States attorneys to actually use the existing Federal law 
because, frankly, most are recalcitrant in doing so, in part 
because they do not understand the relationship between the 
Abduction Convention and the necessity or appropriateness of 
criminal prosecution.
    Finally, by enhancing the attention of the Department of 
Justice to work in collaboration with the Department of State 
in pressing for the extradition of child abductors and 
unflinchingly prosecuting those who've acted in disregard of 
orders, preventing the removal of children from the United 
States, there will be an enhanced deterrent to consideration of 
parental abduction by parents and there will be the 
understanding by the Department of Justice that child abduction 
is not a private matter between two parents who are disgruntled 
in the dissolution of their partnership or marriage.
    The importance of a dedicated Ambassador-at-large has been 
demonstrated by the enormity of this issue and the testimony 
that you've received today.
    While extraordinarily skilled and experienced career 
diplomats have served in the role of Special Advisor on issues 
involving children, there has to be a renewed expertise and 
focus on child abduction as a human rights issue inspired and 
executed by someone who will be recognized on the global stage 
as having the authority commensurate with the complex issues of 
international law which are implicated.
    I listened carefully to the question that was addressed as 
to seeking an MOU. I did not hear an answer with clarity. But 
what was important to understand in the three countries that 
were referenced--Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt--all have 
complicated religious law that is embedded in the resolution of 
child custody issues.
    It's important to have an opportunity to walk through those 
issues in an MOU and to develop a process identified by the 
country as to how the issue of addressing custody, wrongful 
removal, and retention may be done.
    My view is that the expertise in confronting the challenges 
of religious law may be something that has not been addressed 
properly and, perhaps, working closely with the Office of 
Religious Freedom, working closely with the human rights desk 
at the Department of State, would enable engaging religious 
leaders in those countries in working those problems in 
crafting an MOU in addition to actually providing a draft 
because I know that I haven't seen one drafted by anyone since 
those three countries entered the original agreements.
    In conclusion, a reading of 2023 ICAPRA report of the 
Department of State demonstrates that in several countries, 
including some which we would otherwise undoubtedly describe as 
diplomatic allies, if not friends, international child 
abduction persists unchecked and the existing protocols and 
remedies have not been effected to curb it.
    The actions which are now necessary in addressing systemic 
difficulties must be new ones. The world has been reminded by 
the International Criminal Court that child abduction is a 
crime and is in and of itself an inherent violation of human 
rights capable of causing inordinate pain and suffering with 
generational consequences.
    Ironically, those who are facile with the Hague Convention 
on the civil aspects of international child abduction had the 
opportunity to see it coming in declarations which were lodged 
within the last 8 years which predicted the weaponizing of 
Ukraine's children and that's what happens in these cases. 
These children are weaponized.
    There's also circumstances, and speaking to questions by 
Mr. Bera, India's numbers are going up exponentially and there 
is an increased use of trafficking in the context of 
international child abduction for the purposes of obtaining 
financial remuneration.
    A child is abducted and demands are made to the left behind 
parent to provide financial assistance or support in exchange 
for promised but rarely provided access to the child. That's a 
child trafficking violation and should be included among the 
identifications of the harm that's being provided.
    I was deeply proud when the United States Ambassador to the 
United Nations, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield, her colleagues, 
along with the delegations of the United Kingdom, Albania, and 
Malta, walked out of the Security Council briefing being given 
by the Russian Federation Presidential Commissioner Lvova-
Belova.
    But there are other actions that can be taken that stand in 
the face of the constant excuses that are provided for what is 
clearly the lack of compliance. I do not understand the content 
of the Japan report.
    The request to understand what voluntary resolution means 
in these cases or the question that you asked about the seeming 
inconsistency between references of appropriate judicial action 
and no case--listen carefully.
    She said there were return cases but she did not answer 
your question indicating that a return had been accomplished by 
judicial action this year and to my knowledge there has not 
been one to the United States that was pursuant to a judicial 
determination under the treaty alone.
    There was a danger to be found in distinguishing different 
forms of child abduction or excusing abduction of a child by a 
parent or a relative as somehow less serious.
    This legislation empowers those within our government--our 
judicial officers, our law enforcement officers, our officers 
of Homeland Security--as well as those addressing child 
abduction throughout the country on the State and local levels 
to have the tools necessary to prevent child abduction and 
restore those children wrongfully removed and retained to their 
homes.
    I would ask that there be serious consideration to 
requiring a list from the Department of State in response to 
today's hearings of those resolutions that are based on alleged 
judicial action in treaty countries that they have recognized 
as to be nontreaty compliant and for which countries those 
judicial determinations have occurred because without that 
there is absolutely no ability to determine whether or not a 
country is actually in treaty compliance. This is a reciprocal 
treaty.
    We are long past merely calling someone out as being 
noncompliant. It is important now for the Department of State 
to consider whether or not in circumstances in which there is 
no actual reciprocity whether or not there has to be a 
reconsideration of our treaty responsibilities--reciprocal 
responsibilities to a ongoing condition of decades of lack of 
consideration of the treaty.
    I thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Apy follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Ms. Apy, for that. Very 
comprehensive, and we have much to followup on from all three 
of our very distinguished experts who have given so much to 
this cause.
    So I know I cannot thank you enough for your leadership. We 
have embedded in our draft bill three tiers. It mirrors to some 
extent what we did with the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 
and I am the prime author of that bill or the law that was 
enacted in the year 2000.
    But even there we ran into problems. During the Obama 
Administration there was a time where the graders discovered 
through an investigative report that 14 different countries 
were artificially given passing grades that did not deserve 
them for other diplomatic issues.
    For example, Oman got it because they helped facilitate the 
talks with Iran and the United States and other countries in 
Europe for the nuclear deal.
    Malaysia got it because--got an inflated not earned grade 
off tier three, which is the worst, simply because they wanted 
to be part of the TPP, a trade agreement.
    Cuba got it because of a rapprochement that we had done as 
a country with Cuba exchanging Ambassadors and the like. It 
was, like, well, OK, fine. But they still have that egregious 
trafficking issue there, both forced labor and sex trafficking, 
and China got artificially inflated to a passing grade, which I 
found appalling.
    I chaired two hearings that year and into the next year. 
The second was next time get it right, and we focused on the 
fact that you cannot falsify the information. It's got to be 
comprehensive. It's got to be real.
    It's got to be accurate, and then what you do with it in 
terms of sanctioning, because that has a sanction regime as 
well, you know, is at the discretion of the department and the 
administration but not the TIP Report--the Trafficking in 
Persons Report--not this report either.
    So I think we will get to a better place with tiers. But it 
still will require, I believe, an enormous amount of oversight, 
and as I think all of you have indicated the prioritization 
issue is so important. This cannot be something that is done 
where no one else in the building is affected.
    You know, the Secretary of State did a wonderful cover 
letter to this--Secretary Blinken. But, you know, does he raise 
it?
    We just had the Ambassador--the president of Korea here for 
a joint session of Congress. He had multiple meetings with the 
President and everybody else down the chain of command and did 
anybody raise it?
    I did not get to speak to him. I would have. I did not get 
to speak to him. I wish I had that opportunity. But as we know, 
Korea is on the--and they have a new government. I mean, the 
Moon government had huge problems with human rights and its 
obsession with reuniting with North Korea, with Pyongyang, 
which I found appalling, you know, without--who's going to 
influence who?
    Is South Korea going to become more like North Korea or the 
other way around, which we would hope North Korea would become 
like South Korea. But, again, they're on the list and they are 
a friend.
    I remember when they were put on the tier three list during 
George W. Bush's administration and then we know 
parenthetically Israel was put on the trafficking worst case 
scenario as well--tier three.
    Both of those countries went overboard to get off the list 
because they were--potential sanctions were very, very real as 
a possibility and both South Korea and Israel worked overtime 
to pass new laws and to implement a very good.
    So I think we need tiers and I think we then need robust 
oversight to make sure that they are not manipulated in order 
to garner some kind of diplomatic gain with the country in 
question.
    Ms. Apy?
    Ms. Apy. I just wanted to add that no one who does this 
work believes that the numbers in this report are accurate. No 
one. And it's really important to understand that in many of 
these countries the applications--especially nontreaty cases 
the applications are not made because there is not an 
identifiable mechanism.
    The other thing is that parents are not actually guided 
through the process or provided accurate information with 
regard to bringing an application.
    So I think the most--one of the takeaways here is, yes, 
prevention has increased. Yes, there have been excellent 
efforts made in that regard. But these numbers are not accurate 
and as a result that is impacting both on prevention as well as 
return.
    Mr. Smith. Dr. Hunter?
    Dr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have to 
heartily agree with my colleague on the panel and she just said 
it so plainly.
    No one believes these numbers are accurate, and when I read 
the report it's also--I'll use your term--appalling that the 
information is recycled from year to year to year. So the 
content, the narrative, is very similar.
    I could lay down the 2015 report and the 2023 report and 
there is verbatim, you know, content there. But then, more 
importantly, the numbers are not accurate and this speaks, 
again, to the recommendation to fund independent research 
regarding not just State Department performance but Federal 
performance overall and then even extending that to how are 
other countries adhering to these treaty obligations, to what--
at what cost if they do not.
    And so I would just like to heartily agree and then say 
that this is absolutely why independent research is necessary 
for this problem. Thank you.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Morehouse?
    Mr. Morehouse. Thank you.
    If I could add to that, and thank you for bringing it up, 
Patricia. You know, that was really spot on.
    You know, no one believes these numbers. I spent over an 
hour talking with an attorney on a case that I was brought into 
in Tennessee who had talked with the State Department and told 
everything was fine with Japan. They were noncompliant.
    By the end of the conversation he said, I need about a day 
to process what you just explained to me. It's that confusing 
when people that aren't experts like Ms. Apy look at this 
report.
    Also, as we were entering into the hearing I was talking to 
the Special Advisor a little bit and, interestingly, she 
brought up the comment of rhetoric versus action. She was 
speaking as somebody in the department and I heard a lot of 
rhetoric from her.
    It was as though we were given a glimpse through a peephole 
through a door. She mentioned in response to a question about 
returns that since 2021 all return orders that were made were 
enforced with Japan. We need to kick the door open and see 
what's really going on.
    What about the judicial rulings that were never made to 
require a return even be attempted? What about James Cook and 
his case, who's testified in this subcommittee more than once, 
who was the first known case with Japan whose children were 
ordered returned and then it was overturned at the appellate 
level and at the supreme court level of Japan and those 
children never came home?
    What about my good friend, Bjorn Echternach, in Germany, 
who had a return order and whose kidnapping parent was able to 
abscond with the children and disappear into Japanese society 
and the Japanese government did nothing?
    What about the other 500 American children who still remain 
cutoff? She did not want to talk about that. She's only 
highlighting a small glimpse of the story.
    So, yes, disaggregating the numbers, modeling it after the 
TIP Report, I think, is essentially important so that as Ms. 
Apy mentioned, you know, attorneys and judges that are bringing 
these prevention cases in can see very clearly from the report 
this is what's going on if we're considering allowing a child 
to travel to country X and that is not what the State 
Department has been choosing to do.
    They could have done that since 2014. There have been 
numerous hearings that you have led as well as hearings in the 
Senate that have implored them to do it. There have been 
countless meetings we have had as coalition partners asking for 
them to release the numbers.
    So here we are. You've drafted legislation. It's clear 
years of work have gone into this and we look forward to that 
being introduced and, hopefully, passed swiftly by this 
Congress and enacted into law so we can better protect American 
children from being kidnapped in the future and also create 
more substantive robust response from our government, a whole 
of government response, to start repatriating and reuniting 
kidnapped American children.
    Mr. Smith. Just a couple of points. Then I'll give you the 
floor for any final comments.
    We have raised so many issues with Japan over the years. 
I'll never forget Captain Paul--Captain Paul Toland. Here's a 
guy that was given bad advice by his JAG. He was deployed to 
Yokohama.
    His wife, sadly, has passed away and now the grandmother 
has sole custody or at least de facto and he has not been able 
to see his daughter, Erica, for all these years, like you, 
Jeffery.
    All these years, and a gross violation of his human rights, 
his daughter's human rights, and there's so many others like 
that. And, you know, it breaks you. I do not know how you 
persist.
    I cannot say how much I admire your courage and your 
strength because you're not just helping yourself and you are 
trying to help your daughter--your son, I should say. But 
you're helping all the other people who have been left behind 
as well.
    Michael Elias--my chief of staff, Mary, and I went to Japan 
with Michael Elias' mother because we thought that might be 
less confrontational to have her try to visit with their kids, 
two of them, and we were shown the door.
    You know, it was outrageous, frankly, that the Japanese 
government--we met a few people in the Diet and elsewhere that 
were empathetic and sympathetic and then our embassy kept 
saying, but they're going to sign the Hague Convention.
    That's what we got to move toward. Yes, if they do that 
that's great. Leaves him behind and you, potentially, forever. 
So I--you know, I just cannot tell you how disturbing that is.
    And we did talk a lot of other internationals. You know, we 
have met with all the embassies that were in the area and they 
had the same problem, and we talked about MOUs and the need for 
an MOU that was doable, actionable, that would really make a 
difference and we got a lot of yawns.
    So I am very concerned about now it comes down to 
prioritization. You know, I have found in human rights--I've 
been in Congress 43 years.
    When you talk about human rights there are so many people 
in the diplomacy orbit who just want to make that a page six 
footnote somewhere rather than the mainstay of our relationship 
with a country.
    We see it with China today with human rights being 
relegated to--what's that--you know, let's just trade more even 
despite all of Xi Jinping's monstrous behavior and his--you 
know, what he's doing to the Uighurs and everyone else.
    So I just bring that up. You know, it needs to be a 
priority and, you know, we need people walk--you know, who are 
willing and that starts with the President.
    And you--I think it was--Dr. Hunter, you talked or someone 
mentioned, you know, through successive administrations because 
we have raised this with Trump, too, and his people and did not 
get a satisfactory implementation either.
    So we're going to keep at it. I'm going to form--I just 
thought of it while we're sitting here--a caucus of Members of 
Congress and, hopefully, the Senate as well for left behind 
parents and abducted children.
    And I would say it's important. We wrote Section 104, a 
report to congressional representatives, that the Secretary of 
State--this is law. This is in the Goldman Act. Shall submit 
written notification to the Members of Congress and Senators or 
resident commissioner or delegate as appropriate representing 
the legal residents of the left behind parent, and it goes on.
    The whole idea was to get us involved and, Dr. Hunter, you 
talked about how important it was to have Mitch McConnell, to 
have Hal Rogers and Senator Paul all pushing and surging on 
behalf of your daughter. We need that everywhere.
    So I do hope, you know, that the administration will see us 
as value added and then some, I would hope, because we then 
control the purse strings.
    One of my colleagues put a--you know, threatened Lebanon on 
behalf of one of his--you might want to speak to it--it was 
excellent, and all of a sudden his constituent, who had a 
situation where they were very concerned that as his daughter--
her daughter, you know, the woman who's--who had children 
abducted they were going to be put into marriage and then he'll 
never--he'll never see them.
    They got those children back because the Congressman from 
Florida stepped in aggressively and said, OK, Lebanon, we're 
going to go after your purse strings. We're going to make it 
count because it counts for us.
    So I think you wanted to say something?
    Ms. Apy. Yes. Dr. Hunter raised an issue that isn't 
reflected in my report but I think it's important regarding the 
resources that parents have to expend in order to be even 
remotely hopeful in seeking a return.
    The United States took a reservation to the Hague Abduction 
Convention with regard to the provision of attorneys' fees and 
attorneys' assistance in the form of legal aid. I think it's 
really important to reconsider this many years later that 
issue.
    The United Kingdom, which does provide legal aid, Sweden, 
which does provide legal aid, provided on the basis of every 
parent who is asserting a petition under the Convention is 
entitled to have counsel who are expert in the issues of the 
treaty and its application under the domestic law are paid by 
the government.
    Now, what that does is that the fastest return orders, the 
most consistent law in the world, comes out of the United 
Kingdom, comes out of Australia, comes out of Sweden, all 
countries that assure the provision of legal services.
    You cannot underestimate the possibilities of return being 
enhanced when you're able to understand the issue quickly, 
obtain the right representation, and make the right--you know, 
make the right efforts.
    I said in one of the prior times that I've testified that, 
effectively, what we have made these parents do is become their 
own Department of State. They have had to make all of the 
connections. They've had to engage whatever assistance they 
believe they can and talk to anyone and everyone who would 
listen.
    We're not talking--if in fact these numbers that they're 
giving us are accurate then you would propose that the United 
States Department of State should be able to quantify the 
number, to provide adequate legal assistance based on those 
numbers for the opportunity for parents to have legal 
representation in the courts in order--and by the way, American 
citizens whose children are abducted to the United Kingdom are 
covered under legal assistance and I have a case right now 
where the children were very quickly returned.
    That's one of the things that I think has to be looked at 
seriously. There's an excellent volunteer program that's 
instituted and I serve on and a number of other individuals do 
but it's not the same as having an opportunity to know that 
you're going to have resource and that resource is going to be 
able to quickly and effectively bring an application. I think 
it's time to relook at the reservation.
    Mr. Smith. Yes?
    Mr. Morehouse. If I could comment on that, and thank you 
for bringing that up. I think that is really important to 
understand.
    I had a case about 2 years ago that came to our 
organization with Japan and, in the end he said, I just cannot 
afford to, and there's a lot of that, and I do not have an 
answer for that right now. You know, that's why whether it's 
reviewing what Ms. Apy mentioned or hopefully opening up the 
Federal Crime Victims Fund to make funds available, but I do 
like the idea that she's brought up.
    Hopefully, that leads to actually vetted attorneys in those 
countries because one of the problems I've seen with the State 
Department, at least with Japan and I think this is true of 
other countries, they take all comers that want to be listed as 
potential legal resources on the embassy website and then they 
put a big disclaimer on the top.
    And so what we have had to do with Japan is through our 
colleagues working in Japan and other countries is we have 
built an internal list of attorneys that we know that are 
fighting on the right side of this and have some level of 
expertise in the area.
    But right now parents are just left to fend for ourselves. 
You get better support if your car is broken into than if your 
child is kidnapped.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Morehouse. Anything, Dr. Hunter?
    If not we'll----
    Dr. Hunter. Yes. Thank you, sir. Just a very brief closing 
statement.
    I just want to say that this hearing has energized our 
parent community. We watched the interest which is demonstrated 
by parents here today.
    We watched it expand online and it's been a weary time for 
a lot of parents between the time that we have had the Goldman 
Act enacted and now, and I know that there is hope among 
parents, a resurged hope that the bill that you are going to 
reintroduce and the actions that are taken here are going to 
redirect this issue.
    And so, you know, in appreciation for you and for all the 
members of the committee and especially for all of the parents 
and families who against hope and against what is before them 
continue to believe that their children can come home. So thank 
you so much.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Doctor.
    I want to thank all three of our very distinguished 
witnesses. I can assure you we will redouble our efforts. Your 
insights are absolutely priceless. Your direction, your fervor, 
your compassion, is just--it's extraordinary and we're going to 
try to make a difference.
    Jeffery?
    Mr. Morehouse. Sorry, Chairman Smith. I just had a couple 
more comments, if I could.
    Mr. Smith. Sure.
    Mr. Morehouse. Thank you. The Special Advisor mentioned in 
response to a question about children that--victims that reach 
18 and they're making the effort to contact them, this is 
something that I'd worked on years ago. Our colleague in 
organization, Randy Collins, worked on it in his case.
    I recently had one of our coalition partners, Children at 
Borders, contact me and say he reached out, asked his country 
officer--his children were kidnapped to New Zealand--and was 
told there's no such program.
    So this is problematic that they're giving testimony to 
suggest that they are as a matter of course reaching out to 
children victims after 18 if their own country offices are not 
doing this. So it's a little confusing their answers.
    So I know this is part of the legislation. I look forward 
to that moving forward. Additionally, the interagency meetings 
that has been touched on several times in today's hearing, we--
Dr. Hunter and I, through our coalition of organizations, had 
requested to them a couple of years ago that we'd be allowed to 
sit in as observers, if not participants.
    We were told that was reserved for some nonprofit 
organizations but not others. When we pinned them down more 
their response was, well, we invite NCMEC to come. But they 
said, essentially, you're not welcome but if you'd like to 
submit questions.
    I just want to point out that tomorrow there's going to be 
a celebration, the Department of Justice introducing the 
updated fifth edition of the Family Guide to Missing Children. 
Dr. Hunter and I and our organizations have been part of this.
    International parental child abduction is now being added 
to the guide--this is a DOJ-funded guide--for the first time in 
its history and our organizations are going to be listed as 
resource organizations in it.
    So I would argue we probably have a right to have a seat at 
that table at this point.
    Mr. Smith. I will officially make that request.
    Mr. Morehouse. Thank you. And if you could also consider 
asking them if they are actually having Presidentially 
appointed representatives from the departments as mandated by 
the act at these meetings. We do not believe they are, based on 
our conversations.
    I think there was just one other point I wanted to request. 
There were several parents that asked if they could make 
statements. Is it possible for written statements to be 
submitted by whatever deadline you want to set?
    Mr. Smith. Yes. I would hope that it could be done. I ask 
unanimous consent that additional testimonies--that's what 
you're talking about--be made a part of the record and without 
objection, so ordered.
    So if you can get those to us as quickly as possible so 
they become part of the record.
    Mr. Morehouse. Thank you. We'll do that. Thank you.
    Dr. Hunter. Thank you.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, and God bless you and thank you so 
much.
    [Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                APPENDIX

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FROM ANDREW KIM

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FROM ASTRID JOHNSON

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


              STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FROM BRIAN TAVARES

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FROM JAMES COOK

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                               BRIAN SUNG

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                               JOHN SICHI

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                             JON STEFANICK

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                             RANDY COLLINS

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                              RICK JOHNSON

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                              [all]