if america starts filing criminal prosecution against all these child abductors, which we would in our own country if they took them across state lines, then the country where the child is abducted will say we're not going to return

the child back to their home state because then the parent will be in jail and they won't be able to see the child. >> time is our enemy and they are adept at manipulating and keeping these cases going for years until we are the mostly, financial, physically bankrupt. then we just walked as a dead man walking for ever. it is a terrible pain to deal with and to live with. in brazil, it was taking so long for the brazilian authority to even process in my case that i had to hire a private attorney. and then the government of brazil said we're not going to support you because now it's an individual case. you hired a private attorney. you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. they look for anything to keep the kid there. >> and in two cases because both have less publicity than of

course, maybe it did, but i'm from new jersey so i followed the case very closely, did they attempt as they know he would do it as in your case a change to turn the child against you? i mean, the parents -- how did both of your children respond? what were their ages? >> my boy is three now. he was two when he left. and because i'm able to see him my webcam, i know come he knows william. he calls me sarah. he doesn't have any english, so i learned just to keep up with them, we look at picture books. constantly concerned that losing his attention. i can't hold them, play with them, kick the ball. i'm trying to find new ways all the time to keep him involved. so far, back to the previous statement, i haven't dealt so far with legal maneuverings, but

i strongly believe that even if i win my case, mohammad is a flight risk, then what? he's going to go somewhere. then what? he goes to hide in a village and his family protecting. so the other side of that is some real political will to say, this person has won her case with this person's case was wrongfully ruled or whatever, but to follow through on that. just like i mentioned before, by where to go next, knowing how this affects the next, we got to see this all the way through. i'm not going to wait until released to try to find him. i'm not going to wait to try to prevent it. but thankfully so far that hasn't been the case but i do not know what he says about me. i don't know. i only imagine it's a very bad things because his family who i know for eight years and loved closely, turned against me. so clearly he is saying something bad. i really tried to enjoy my time with my son. i really tried to only focus on those moments we have.

so i don't poke the beast and ask his father what he says. i don't poke the beast and say, what do you think this is doing to our child? i have many questions i would love to ask them, and i don't have that chance because it's much more important for me to see my son and to know that money is not crying and we're happy and we're having a good time. because that's his normal right now. this way doesn't have a mom. this boy is there completely separate from half of his life. i don't want to be continually adding to his distress. into a chilled. >> thank you. i just -- >> my son was one year old when he was taken from school. i hadn't seen him for two years. it's hard to formulate concepts of that's a bad person in a very young child's mind. as my son gets older it's a concern that adeptly have. and following these cases for years to come it's something that happens all the time.

i just recently saw my son three weeks ago for about 15 minutes for the first time in two years. and as ms. edwards spoke to, you do, we're really concerned about our children. we really want -- i did run and grab my son. i hadn't seen for two years. i believe he wouldn't remember me when he saw me. and i didn't run and grabbed him. i kind of came up to him and i said hi, how are you doing? and i asked him what his name was, and he looked at me, and i was relieved to see that there was a recognition that i was someone important, that i was someone he knew, even if he didn't know that i was his dad. they have been teaching him to call his grandfather father. and i believe that is a very serious piece of parental alienation that will be hard to change. so for the time being, i think seeing the reaction my son had

come we both enjoyed ourselves, and i think when they saw that reaction, that anybody that we had, that relationship still existed and the potential for it to grow, i haven't been able to see my son since. three weeks, i've been in mexico for a total of four weeks in italy prior to this hearing, and i saw my son the first week, that 15 minutes, and they've been completely unresponsive to allow me to see him again. and i think it is an effort for parental alienation at some point it was a look, the child doesn't know you come he doesn't respond to him. he doesn't know, you know, he has no relationship so it's a legal tactic as well as a form of child abuse, frankly. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. goldman, in your letter to secretary clinton, and the letter that was signed by a left

behind parents can 117 children come you state that in our experience all too often these international child abduction cases do not appear to be addressed aggressively because of the state department's effort to maintain harmonious bilateral relations with other countries, or to pursue other compelling foreign policy goals. and, mr. bermudez, you alluded to the same thing in your testimony, that frustration with the state department. now, i would like to ask the three of you, if we were the state department, what is it you want to tell them and what is it you want us to ask of them and to tell them? so if you to be specific with us, what do you see pashtun what you want the state department to do? because i disagree with the fact that the state department doesn't work for the american people, because they do. ultimately, they are to be representing the american people. you are the american people. so i'd like to hear from you specifically. what is it you need and you want

from the state department so we can have the opportunity to make those demands of them? we will start with mr. goldman. >> well, first as former assistant secretary of the western hemisphere pointed out at the last hearing, two years ago, when there is an ambassador who was appointed, say, to mexico or colombia, the first order of business is going to be immigration, drug -- [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> hello? okay. so, those are the issues are taking precedence and are abducted children are on the bottom of the totem pole. and we need to make them a priority. the number of children that are being abducted, and also the

ones that are remaining held illegally, it's just growing and growing. so we need to have this ambassador at large to focus specifically on our abducted children. we need to have some sort of system where congress, each congressman, knows when a child is abducted from their district. and they'll be the advocate and get involved with the state department. also the state department needs tools. they should be here begging us for help that they need and have needed for so many years. it shouldn't be anything that we have to introduce and then hope for votes and then hope the democrats and republicans will get together to help our children. the state department should be here begging for us for the health and to give them the tools that they so desperately need in our toolbox. [applause] >> and if it has to go although it up to economic sanctions, it

has to go up to economic sanctions. [applause] ms. edwards, either same question for you. >> -- i have the same question for you, aside from the points david mentioned, one huge specific is it that there should be a way for the state department to correspond with the turkish -- excuse me, with the central authorities with the hague signatory countries. and that they should be able to flag people who are subject to a current hague case and prevent them from traveling outside of the country during a current hague case. this is something that can be done and something that should be done. the fact that there's a good possibility mohammad will come back and tried to maintain his legal residency status, retained

his green card status. he can come into any port, do that, stay couple of days, go home. which without my son ever come here, without my son having rights to me. but i guess those are the specifics i really, really would pray for. yeah, i will end with that. >> thank you. mr. bermudez? [inaudible] [inaudible] >> could you turn the microphone on? >> sure. i think one of the problems we had with our foreign service officers is might be called a --

it's unclear whether our foreign service officers represent foreign country enters or america's interest in foreign country. i think one thing that would be of value to us is that each applicant of state department identifies where the united states is on the globe, to be sure that we know that they know who they're working for. [applause] >> the other thing, i would really like them to know is, you know, when we want to promote the interests of abducted children, we're not asking for something that's unpopular. this is something that will be respected for. this is not an irritant. this is something every other country has this problem, you know. we have to look beyond the trees to see the forest. i mean, it's a case where, if we

can lead on this issue, this is a human rights issue. let's be very clear about that. contrary to suspend political capital, we will gain political capital. we will have the opportunity to speak with moral authority on other issues. and i think that's some authority like he but i think our advocacy like you on this is detrimental to our foreign policy. i think it has a negative effect rather than -- >> and we are not asking these countries for any favors. we're just asking them to abide by the rule of law. we don't want favors. there's not a favor to return our abducted children. it's abiding by the rule of law. simple. it should be so simple. >> thank you very much. i appreciate your courage to be here today, and to all the folks in the room. thank you very much for your willingness to come out. and i ask you not to be discouraged. i understand all these hearings

in this many years later, but i think you have a pledge of these members of congress that we are concerned and we will hold the state department, we'll talk with them, and certainly hold them accountable. they do work for the american people and we do pay their salaries, so thank you all very much for being here. [applause] >> i want to thank our very distinguished panel. i just want to ask one yes or no question. you know, it's been said that if you say you don't have time, you have stated a fact. i know david, you've spoken to u.s. ambassador in brazil, took a long time, but i wonder, ms. edwards, mr. bermudez, have you in contact with u.s. ambassador? >> no. >> absolutely not. >> anything else you'd like to ask before we go to panel number two? thank you so much for your testimony.

[applause] >> i would like to know welcome our second panel, and begin with mr. michael eliza is currently sheriff in a state of new is a former sergeant in united states marine corps, and met his wife while stationed in japan. in 2004-2005. she abducted their children, jenny and michael, to japan in december of 2008. to his testimony here we'll hear about the political challenges that parents face, particularly when they have happened to be military personal. i would note that earlier this year i traveled with nancy ann mcgill, jade and michael's grandparents, michael's mom and dad, to japan, spent several days of their meeting with high official in the japanese government. and it was very clear that when they got to make the case

they're very empathetic ears, but the questions one of those empathetic years turned into tangible policy that will permit the return of children have been abducted to japan but as i said at the outset, it needs to be undisturbed township underscored. without resolving the existing cases, there will be a gross miscarriage of justice perpetrated upon those american children and those left behind parents. so this committeecome and ensure members of both sides of the aisle, will be very empathetic to our friends in japan, and mr. joshua izzard who is a father of melisande or who was born in chicago who was born in 2008. she was taken by her mother to russia in october of 2010.

he has not seen his daughter since september of last year and has been allowed to even talk to her since january. they were abducted by their august 2000. collin remains committed to his swift and safe return of his children i'm pleased to have joined barney frank in sponsoring h.r.-1 93 with regards to their particular case. mr. elias if he would proceed. congressman smith and distinguish memories of the subcommittee, my name is michael eliza and i would like to thank you for all your opportunities to share with you my personal experience involving international child abduction. i would like to first extend my deepest sympathies to the people of japan affected by the devastation of the earthquake,

tsunami and nuclear disasters. i am a former sergeant of the states marine corps from august 2003, november 2007. i've currently a chef in a state of new jersey. while stationed in japan in 2004-2005, i met my wife. and shortly thereafter i was stationed in camp lejeune, north carolina. she contacted me and inform me that she was pregnant. in september 2005, she relocated to the united states, and that october 18, 2005, we were married in new jersey. our first child, jade was born on january 5, 2006, at the naval hospital in camp lejeune. in march of 2007, i was deployed to iraq. on august 2, 2007, while i was serving my country, my son michael angel was born at hackensack medical center in new

jersey. this inspired new levels of patriotism and responsibility inside of me that was matched with a love for my family and children. while i was deployed, my wife and my children lived with my parents in new jersey. during that time she started relationship with the japanese national. who was her travel agent. when i returned from serving my country in iraq, my wife, much of an my extended family were all reunited and living together in new jersey. sadly, a few months after my return, my wife and i separated. i would then served with a document headlining an agreement for travel and residency. stating that i, michel elias, allow her and my two-tone to visit japan without any restrictions under any circumstances. if these conditions were not met, i would have to surrender any custody rights from jade and michael to her. this would also result in a

relocation of her and my two children to japan from the united states if she elects to do so. the document and stated whether or not any actions of michel elias is complied with conditions above are determined by her and she she must respect her decision adding time. also, regardless of the court's decisions. michel elias respects and follows the terms stated above. i sought counsel after she asked me to sign the document that she had already signed on september 26, 2008. on october 29 '02 thousand eight before the honorable judge alexander carver, the superior court of new jersey, i was awarded custody of my children. on that day, judge carter clearly ordered three times that the children's passports both american and japanese be turned over to their attorney because

she was an obvious flight risk. i did everything i could to ensure the safety and well being of my children. i felt confident and had every reason, reasonable expectation in our legal system, with the ruling of judge carter and the strength of the united states government. that my american-born children would be protected from being kidnapped to japan. i was wrong. she was an employee of the japanese consulate in new york city issuing visas and passports. she used her position in the consulate as a tool to carefully collaborate the abduction of our children. she had replacement passport issued in the japanese consulate in chicago where she and her boyfriend asked if the country through chicago's own hair airport. they carried out the abduction of her children on the japanese airlines flight number nine batter tokyo in japan on december 6, 2008. i still have in my possession the original passports.

my family and i are horrified and sickened by her actions. we have repeatedly attempted to contact japanese consulate in new york, chicago, washington, d.c., and continue to receive no cooperation whatsoever. shortly after she arrived in japan, i was contacted by her saying she had unilaterally decided that she will raise the children in japan. would explain to her that she kidnapped our children, she maintained that, i quote, it's not kidnapping. our country will protect me. thereafter, i was awarded full custody of our children here in the united states. the judge also ordered the immediate return of the children to the united states from japan by means of the hague convention. unfortunately, the judge was unaware of japan not being a signatory of the treaty, and japan, japan's lack of secession, something she seemingly understood. to date no doubt it's ever been

returned from the japanese government according to the state department's statistics. there are 321 documented cases of abduction from the u.s. to japan alone. if we include numbers of american children abducted while living in japan, statistics would significantly be higher. it is no doubt that these heinous crimes will continue, and that the time of our next state department meeting, these figures will have risen as more children will continue to be unwillingly and unlawfully abducted. since the abduction, i've played with her to return a chilling back to the united states assuring her that there are no criminal charges pending for fear that she will not return under those conditions. on january 5, 2010, i was granted the privilege to see my children via skype. it was my daughter's fourth birthday. although it was very hard to see my children through a monitor, it was very satisfying to see them so happy to see me. my daughter, jade, look at her

mother in hartigan said you are ever so softly something in japanese. when i asked her what jade had said, she replied she wants to be with you. the monitor emulate went blank. that was the last time i saw my daughter's face. feather at the show my parents flew to japan with the assistance of the united states embassy in tokyo. congressman smith and my attorney, patricia abbey, tried to contact her to see if they could visit their grandchildren. after countless e-mails and phone calls were ignored, the u.s. embassy was able to reach her. and she denied any access for my parents and she also told them to say that she was not accepting any other phone calls -- excuse me. needless to say, my parents were devastated but not shocked. the sense of longing for my children can be completely unbearable and crippling at

times that it does not get better with time. it only grows deeper and deeper. along with a sense of hopelessness as a father, who no longer has his children told in his arms, i cannot deal with the sorrow so i try my best to stay strong and keep fighting for their return. all my hopes and dreams for their future now lies in the hands of others. i am begging our government to help not only my family, that hundreds of other heartbroken families as well, to demand the return of our american children who are being held in japan, and in most cases, never seen from or heard from again. this goes against everything we stand for as americans, and especially for our children's lives and well being. this is not just a family issue or an international issue. this is a human rights issue.

our children are too young to speak for themselves. i am expecting our deep -- our government to be their voice. in conclusion, i would like to read the names of the fallen american children abducted to an long fully retained in japan are unaccounted for since the earthquake, tsunami and ongoing nuclear disaster. gianna berg, donna berg, k. college, donaldson, david russell, joshua kesselman, lucy greenberg, shannon, we do, ricky kept part, mary victoria lee, yuki mccoy, rudy praeger, redon suzuki, t. on a we, to conduct we, and tie up one.

[applause] proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and members of congress were invited to to testify today. regarding ongoing tragedy of international parental kidnapping. i am joshua izzard, brave father as legal guardian. my american-born and raise a daughter and only child who was taken almost eight months ago to russia. whose voice i haven't heard from many long months now. i've been living for nearly eight months with a hole in my life while some, like mr. sylvester of cincinnati, ohio, because when i read during the preparation of my own, and

his daughter and others like them have lived with that whole for many years. our great country must stop the constantly of his most important resource, its children. in the interest of other may i say more tangible our natural resources. or diplomatic games. as a nation we need to construct legal mechanisms to facility resolution of existing parental kidnappings and put in place effective preventive mechanisms to assure that our citizens are not subjected to this day the unbearable sorrow that comes in the wake of international parental kidnapping. i was in rome, italy, when my decade-long partner, the love of my life, wife of five years, mother of our daughter, called to inform me that she and my little blue-eyed angel were in russia and would never return. that i would never see my daughter again. in shock am i nearly collapsed on the street. i wrote the first of many letters for my daughter while flying home. speeding westward away from her

to chicago. and my heart seemed full of dread and i'm winding. at home i opened the door to chicago apartment overlooking lake michigan, and desolation overwhelming passion overwhelms me. no joyous, daddy's home, only silence, thundering silence. initial denial became resolve to protect my child who now lives in great danger. to bring her back to her loving, lawful home. since the kidnapping, my offers of compromise and reconciliation have gone unanswered. court orders and decisions ignored, and please don't list of phone calls with my daughter and he. and local arrest warrant has been issued for her. the fbi, interpol, chicago pd,

national center for missing and exploited children state department and congressman's offices are all involved. of the fbi open? crawls along due to the office of children issued steadfast refused to inform the fbi as to how they have been contacting my ex-wife. i have given interviews to u.s. and russian media. each time employer giuseppe speak with me to have a solution. millicent was torn away from me and everyone and everything she had known from birth and one cruel selfish instead by her mother, and maternal grandmother at a profit plunge into a strange world of darkness, mentally ill is in physical danger. her own sign statements declare that she is merely moved in with her high school boyfriend in russia, and abuse of individuals named on trade, with amazement when she been having an extra marital relationship for some time prior to the kidnapping. he is a violent alcoholic with numerous document citations for public intoxication, drunk driving for which he lost his

license, and physical violence ranging from assaulting a bar employed to terrorizing neighbors and drunken rage news. both his former wife and longtime live-in partner report that his inability control himself when drinking was a primary cause of the breakup of the relationships, and he is furthermore reported to be a devoted adherent to a cold which advocates the use of psychoactive drugs, engaging in ritualistic sexual behavior, and forcing women to submit to dominant males isolating themselves from society. this is precisely what my ex-wife has done. despite networking, tatyana attended only two course hearings in russia before turning over full power of attorney regarding all aspects of our divorce, including militants upbringing tested to a violent alcoholic, decisions which will impact my daughter's life forever. the role of the russian consulate in the abduction itself in the ensuing legal processes has seen russia make a joke of its own laws to the

international community. to accomplish the abduction, tatyana turned to the russian consulate in washington, d.c., for help. what she said is unknown, but she was issued a one time russian repatriation certificate with our american daughter's name written on it. this document allowed her to abduct our daughter, a u.s. citizen, from u.s. oil and transport are directed to a nonpaid country. imagine situation, too nervous russian women with a bewildered two year-old u.s. is an passing through security and boarding a foreign down commercial flight to one of america's busiest airports without passport. without the signed permission of their father. tatiana minello to thank the russian diplomats, nikolai and others, for the certificate issued shortly after the kidnapping. this note is in possession of the fbi. to reiterate, tsa officials

accepted a travel doctor if you have a passport and airline that flew with required no further checks as to why and how these individuals were boarding an international flight with no passport and no permission from the other pair. while at that very moment the father was scouting shops and rover presents to bring back to his beloved family. diplomatic abuse and lack of as the controls made this abduction possible. i have many close friends in russia, sadly it is a country which not only international laws and human rights are frequently violated, but one which is not followed the letter of its own law. consider the fact that since 2003, russia has unilaterally -- the 1965 convention. it will not serve its citizens with divorce papers are legal documents from the united states of america, yet it permits its citizens to argue in court that they were not properly served because the papers were not delivered by hague service convention through the ministry of justice in russia.

this bike as i was able to set aside both american and russian process service requirements and went on to win the american custody case when we're divorce on december 29, 2010. and proceed to legalize the divorce decision at the russian consulate in washington, d.c., and this decision was affirmed by the russian government of iraq is office in moscow this day the american divorce was valid in russia from the moment on december 29, 2010, that went into effect. now, please prepare yourselves intrigue. russian judge being in possession of the properly served american divorce decision and divorce decision translated into russia allow tatyana to initiate a divorce suit with me as responded, the first things on jenny 20th, 2011, then a month after we were divorced with a decision the russian state had already considered valid. my ex-wife's brother as former

head of the legal department of the terms in, within days, any including primetime specials vilifying me was undertaken. in the campaign include public statements and letters by politicians who both violated russian constitutional law regarding separation of the political and judicial system. they both approached judges, they themselves publicly declared so, and requested an expedited outcome in favor of the russian mother. there was a live blog and which was published an entry about my family titled i am against america. i then receive serious threats against my life, so serious that i won't travel, spending credibility my formalized -- to my former wife that i don't even

care enough about my daughter to visit her. please note there's no mention of the welfare of my daughter but rather it is rush against america and my daughter is a political pawn. the process leading up to my quote unquote second divorce for my only wife on march 24, 2011, was fraught with by the legal infractions were numerous. the presiding judge met in private with her side, evidence was introduced in the court clerks files. decision consisting of several typed pages were ready within minutes or even seconds of the conclusion of the hearing. indicating that they had been prepared beforehand. at one hearing it was plain that the two and half year old millicent said she did not wish to speak with her father. this document was upheld by russian courts. it was ted i'm currently in russia plotting a ramble like attempt to bring millicent home

and was therefore forbidden found that my passport preside not traveled outside the united states since i was in rome. russian immigration and border patrol could confirm that i've not had a russian visa. on march 24, 2011 for i was divorce from a person that russia had acknowledged i was not married to. and had not been for the preceding three months. during the hearing, 20 procedural norms of the russian code of civil procedure or civil code were broken. tatyana was awarded full custody and another divorce as well as child support which if applied by russian stance would require a local father to play -- to pay 80% of his income. completeness of these violations is available upon request. here's a quick sampling. i won't enumerate the numbers meaningless. however, summary of them is by violating existing russian laws,

the russian courts provided a legalization of the abduction. i was never served with any court documents from russia, and i was not allowed to get just what our present statements from scores of witnesses willing to testify for me. my ex-wives only witness, gave testimony against me including statements that we have spoken in 2011 what about the last time that i've spoken with this individual was 2009. i was not given time for translation of the documents. my lawyer was denied are given delayed access to case materials. by legalize russian court decision and russian government approved that i was already divorce were not taken into consideration. a higher court process was ignored by lower courts, and the courts refused to accept and register official evidence. the case was tried in a court which had no jurisdiction because no evidence was even presented that millicent could

be a russian citizen. my daughter and i were denied and continue to be denied contact with each other throughout the course of the proceedings. again, explicitly violated russian law. but there is no mechanism for enforcement. so grievous for the violations of the 10 days ago a court in russia upheld my viewpoint overturning the lower court decision in its entirety in sydney the case back to the same lower court but to be retried by a different judge. my ex-wife and i may soon have the singular disdain and having been married once but divorced three times. however, the appeal was reviewed without notification of my legal counsel, and the second half of the session occurred without him being present. as has happened numerous times. and while side of the infractions, the over riding reason for the overturn of the previous decision, was that no

evidence had been presented, that millicent is a russian citizen. and so to my surprise, in the course of this very hearing, at the beginning i was given a copy of a facts from the russian consulate confirming, indeed, that my daughter is a russian citizen you can furthermore, the document which i had never seen before, that bears my signature giving permission to the granting of russian citizenship to my daughter. very expedient. mr. chairman, i contend that my daughter and i have the inalienable right to a full and loving parental child relationship. the russian consulate, courts and government assistance, have facility violation of my daughters and my right to the most basic human relationship, the really foundations of law, international diplomacy, and one of the most important in

society, back to the elemental, the failure to initiatives like the beginning to happen now we have a lifelong thing affect. i cannot imagine doing to my god what is being done to her. i deplore my family tragedy being politicized and i appeal to russia to let your political one upmanship and to acknowledge that horrible injustice is being done to a little girl who needs her father, into a five and family that love her little cold that comes organize and joyous laugh. americans must take a decisive stance on defending our own decisions, our own in a civil rights to the basic relationships and bonds that a person as both between children and their parents. ipr testimonies might be good legislation which would unite all the parties which prevent the most situation for other parents and children who might suffer due to selfless decisions of one or another pair. intervention by government agencies whose hands are tied by

incomplete or nonexistent laws and enforcement mechanisms can lead to one eventuality and one alone. in non-haiti cases, and as we see many hate cases, of a child abduction, it's those complete control of the situation and of the other parent. the situation must be change for our children's future. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. the chair recognizes mr. bauer. >> thank you, chairman smith, honorable committee members, thank you for inviting me to testify today. chairman smith, thank in particular for your support of h.r.-1 hundred 93 with congressman frank. my children, both american citizens were kidnapped and are being held illegally today in egypt by egypt. meanwhile, can i stay's rewards them by giving them billions of dollars in aid, this is wrong. i call for a cessation of any

aid until the recognize human rights, spirit of their own revolution, and in doing so return my son. now aged and eight were kidnapped in 2009 by the mother. in light of her condition, outlined in h.r. 193, i have always assumed the parenting responsibility for my two boys. i woke up with them everyday, fed them, clothe them, nature they got to school, i had a schedule for the add button to play dates and parties. i paid them, i read to them, i put into bed. i changed jobs and are two simultaneous to support my family financially, and act as a single. it before and after the divorce, i remained the sole legal and primary custodial parent. when i think of today and worry about moz of the present safety, and the future quality of life,

i wonder what they're being taught and what choices they will ultimately have in life. their futures are being impacted each day they remain parroted by an unfit mother who remains supported by her government and enabled by her family from the abduction to the ongoing support of parental alienation and child abuse. both financially to their company and otherwise. my boys are being forced to hide from the rest of the world, and i can't imagine what this must be like for them. there are several notable issues involved in this tragedy. first, this is not a custody battle. there's a 20 month court case in boston complete in december 2008 in which both parties which has been fully from start to finish, including curbing represent by six separate high-powered u.s. divorce attorneys. this is a federal crime if the fbi issued a federal warrant for the arrest for her and the

issuance of interpol red notice. third, this involved national security. she up in egyptian passports the children. the passports were in false names. egyptian passports real. passport fraud, which this is, is an extraditable offense under the mutual legal assistance treaty that exist today between egypt and the united states. false passports by definition are used to commit crimes in other countries, just as in this case. fourth, this is child abuse. the u.s. supreme court and other international bodies to both child abduction and parental alienation child abuse. this is not debatable. the fact that she was found to be a long-term addict of schedule to narcotics, and incapable of anticipating the voice needs, is yet another level of child abuse, which in perils the boys today. lastly, this is a state-sponsored crime. the egyptian government issued

false passports that indirectly only airline ignored all the obvious lies by letting her kidnapped these boys to egypt using egypt air. and they provided her security to the egyptian state security agency, an agency which is now defunct. after the revolution for being corrupt. the egyptian government shutdown streets for her to travel, something they don't do to the highest level politicians. there are many things we can to emulate to protect of basic human rights. because times limit, the first and most obvious in current events, before receiving the $2 billion de facto aid package announced last week of egypt must demonstrate through action its commitment to human rights are given the people of egypt who either benefit or suffer from this aid have spoken about the need to make sure this money does not simply continued the power structure that existed under the now defunct mubarak

regime. by definition my children's rides are and have been abused for 21 months now. i call on the us government to ensure that the new egyptian government is protecting human rights, not violating them, and demonstrates this is a return of her before giving any aid to egypt at second, before receiving aid we need to ensure that the inlet is being enforced by a part of. and improper exhibition is being carried out. this is a national security issue and one that impacts all of us indiana state. we should not provide aid to countries that have enabled crimes to be commuted and our country against our citizens and to do not implement conditions of the mlat to any agreement and decide that it is not enforced it is worse than having no treaty at all as it allows purveyors of deceit to fly under a false cloak of legitimacy. third, before they receive aid we need countries to agree to recognize and near existing

orders revolving -- involving custody orders. and legally represented. these are principles, not inconsistent with the hague convention today. fourth, i call on her pumpkin party to stop the moratorium on resolutions being heard in congress and make available the ability of house resolutions to be heard on the floor, including and notably h.r. 193 which is bipartisan and involves the lives of my two little boys. alternatively, i ask for exceptions to be made in cases crucial to the lives of american children, including my boys and others in similar situations. i ask that both party stand together to send a strong message to egypt and other countries that we support the egyptian people's gold of obtaining democracy and human rights but ensuring the new government acts in concert with these guys before receiving the financial backing of the united

states. given the relative facts, it's not a stretch to say that h.r. 193 is acted upon could very well save the lives of my children. fifth, there must be for the controls in place to protect against the unlawful removal of our children to foreign countries, in my case the divorce judgment did call for the restriction on my ex-wife to remove the children from the commonwealth, were such controlled in place, this removal would not have happened. i thank you for the invitation to speak to take and for your consideration of his most important issue. >> thank you very much for your testimony. [applause] >> thank each of you for your very specific recommendations, and for very carefully delivering your individual heartache. because that helps us to get a better handle on what we can do to hopefully positive and our response as well.

i would again note this is a panel of non-hague countries, this review have had her children abducted to a country that has not signed hague, unlike the first panel. but i wonder if you could, we'll have a series of those, i will be brief and i'll have other questions later. by the office of children's issues, if you chose briefly how well or poorly staff sergeant giunta and could you not to worry about retaliation, even though that is easier for me to say then you. and if any of the parents know of an incident where someone cops an attitude or worse, as a result of your candor, we as an oversight as well as a lawmaking committee, legislative committee, need to know that because we also do. and i just want to say that again with emphasis. i would like to know if each of you have had a phone call from perhaps the ambassador or any contact with the ambassador in

russia, egypt, japan? and also common to of you spoke in michel elias' case of a passport been issued under fraudulent circumstances. in other words, the judge took the original passports, and then someone in the counselor's office in chicago, illinois, falsely issued either knowingly or unload me, we don't know still, but the japanese government told you that there would be an investigation it once happened to the investigation? before you answer, and in case of mr. bower, you talk about outright fraud was clear with wrong names in violation as you put of the mlat. what has been the response of our government to you on that issue? and then i will yield to mr. payne for any questions you may have. >> as far as the office of children's issues, congressman smith, i have not -- i have spoke with him directly. i have not gained or lost

anything from them, so there's no comment i could really make up on that. and as far as the phone call from the ambassador goes from japan, i have not personally spoke, received a letter, or heard any news, good or bad, from him personally. >> briefly, has someone called you at anytime or is that all been oic see, or what? >> there is that ongoing investigation but for the past almost three years in december that my children have been taught i have not received anything upon an investigation or call from their embassy directly from chicago or new york. >> mr. izzard, do you and the other left behind parents whose children have been abducted to japan with the g8 summit, they've are shortly to be convened, and the anticipated announcement by japan that they may sign the hague of course with reservation, they could be catastrophic, how does that make you feel and the others left

behind parents whose kids are in japan? >> as far as then signing the hague convention, i don't, i don't see it happening persevered like we discussed before even if they do, there's going to be numerous, different kinds of language in it that would probably prevent me or any other left behind parent as of right now from being grandfathered in. it would definitely have to be, i think we should definitely come if we're getting to decide the hague convention, we should sit down and declare what we want in the hague convention, not what they seem as right to be put in just so they can have us off their back and say -- [applause] >> so in your view there would need to be a sidebar agreement, country to country, u.s. -- >> sit down with them. [applause]

>> i would like to answer first any question regarding oci and how oci has served me. it's been competent. they have conducted to welfare and whereabouts visits in russia based entirely upon information on which i had to literally spend a fortune on to actually locate my wife and daughter via private means. however, the office of children's issues has refused to coordinate with the fbi since the fbi investigation can move forward. the agent i've been working with of the office has been -- overcome because it unusual circumstances that we were not, we're not getting divorced when my daughter was abducted, there's a very high bar to clear in order for there to be criminal charges. however oci has no provide the relevant information as how to contact her so that the fbi could hopefully get the russians

to contact her and get her side of the story. regarding contact with the embassy or the ambassador, my mother actually assisted me greatly in contacting the embassy in moscow. she was, at the time, living in moscow. however, the oci here in washington discouraged us from continuing to do so because they said they would like all can occasion to be handled directly through the office in washington, d.c., even though in my opinion, the people on the ground in russia have a better understanding of the very unique circumstances regarding, say, the way things are done in russia. i think that's all. >> in my case, i have spoken with ambassador scobee and met with ambassadors go in cairo a number of times. and almost weekly contacts and consul general there. i speak directly into and get

directly with the pastor jacobs. attention and responsiveness has not been my issue. really, it's ironic in a way that this amount of attention almost takes away from the need to act on either party. and i would give up all of this attention for one single act, when you move in the direction of a return, and i've not seen it. i think a lot of the diplomats gets away to any activity whatsoever. i would also note that for the record, it's difficult to speak directly about the state department when you believe that the return of your children false squarely into the hands and to think about being negative in any which way. as a family, as a parent in this situation, you do not in any way want to speak out against them because they could potentially provide an avenue for the return

of your children regarding the mlat, the state department has filed a request for information. the assistant u.s. attorney has filed a form -- formal request. senator kerry has sent a letter. i have as is my right, according to egyptian law filed a request for information regarding passport documents. all have been summarily denied or ignored, and were the attorney general's office continued to pursue this, they have said to quote the assistant u.s. attorney, they have another arrow in the quiver. i do not know what that means. there has been no president -- precedent set for me under mlat. >> thank you. thank you all for your testimonies, and just wonder, mr. elias, being a military person, do you see these issues, perhaps even being more

prevalent with members from our military with regard to where they are serving? >> i see it being more prominent in the military strictly because subjected to overseas, at long periods of time. and if i could get anything to that, that question, when you're brought overseas, any country that you go to, and being a marine, you are briefed on everything from the number of people that have aids over there, to the amount of robberies, injury given classes on how the ocean comes in and hits the shore your out of all those classes i should have been given a class on child abduction, or at least -- [applause] >> had it aware to me because i was so young in japan, i was only 19 years old serving my country in japan and i had no

idea i would be sitting here before any of you today. >> it seems like that should be a part of military training. japan has had a relationship with the u.s. military in okinawa and other places that has been strained for a long period of time, and it seems like that would be a part of what they would be talking about. hopefully, perhaps, you know, with the great support that the united states has been given with the current tragedy in japan, perhaps, you know, there could be some opening up a dialogue to the government of japan about taking a look at the matter in which they treat their friends. in egypt also have a country that is going through transiti transition, perhaps it may be an opportunity, there is a very

close military relationship to the egyptian military, are currently in charge. and it might be a suggestion to our state department officials, and even department of defense, are probably the ones that influence the egyptians, not to fire on the people, egyptian people, military to military kind of relationship they have, and as we saw in other syria, tunisia, military fired on the people in syria, so there could possibly be some at this time and opportunity to have our government talk, even if it is military state department to the egyptian government, so i would hope that that might be a window of opportunity. ..

>> but at least your three countries i think that there is some hope at least that there could be some, some dialogue. so with that, i won't ask you any other questions. time is -- we have votes coming up, and i'll yield to other members of the panel. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you to you all for being here today. mr. elias, thank you for your service to this country. i will ask three brief countries and allow other members to ask

their questions and then submit additional questions in writing. mr. izzard, in your testimony you mentioned about two russian diplomats in the russian embassy and that, you know, your ex-wife worked with them. has any follow up been done, anyone held them accountable for their part in this? and was there any prosecution? >> there has been no prosecution. there was a meeting approximately one month ago between the united states department of tate and russian consulate employees. the state department declined to tell me with who they met in particular, i do not believe it was these two individuals. and the russian consulate stated their policy is that any person that comes in the front door that can prove they're a russian citizens that that person's word will be taken at face value on good faith. and, therefore, they felt that they were justified in doing whatever that they did.

in issuing whatever -- this repatriation certificate which allowed my ex-wife and daughter to leave the country without passports. >> and so someone from the state department attended that hearing or meeting, but you were not involved in it? i was not involved in that meeting, and i was given very limited information as to what was divulged. >> do you know who the person from the state department was? >> i believe it was ms. jenelle guest, and i think she was accompanied by someone else, but i do not know that individual's name. >> thank you. um, mr. elias, same with regards to you. after the judge ordered that the pass ports be surrendered, you testified that your ex-wife obtained new passports. has anyone, has there been an investigation of her actions, anyone who may have assisted her, and any outcome to that or prosecution? >> um, i have my speculations of

who assisted her and everything like that. i don't want to get into that. but there is, supposedly, an ongoing information that i have not received a -- investigation that i have not received a conclusion for at this time. >> and in your situation is it the state department as well that is -- who's conducting the investigation? >> the actual embassy of japan. >> thank you. and lastly, mr. bower, um, you mentioned about the tsa's role and the airline's role and the fact that they let the children go through. has any further action been taken against the airlines and/or the tsa? have you had a conversation with them, made them aware of the situation? >> yes. as a matter of fact, there's currently a suit that i filed against egypt air in this matter, and we, the suit is ongoing, so i can't speak much about it.

um, so i'll leave it like that. but, yes, we're in discovery about this very issue. >> and with regards to the tsa, have they been put on notice of what happened? >> yes, they have. >> okay. i yield back my time. thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to our witnesses today. >> thank you very much. mr. ma' mow? marino in. >> chairman, i do not have any questions. i'd like to make a statement though. first of all, i cannot begin to imagine what pain all of you have gone through, and you have my deepest sympathies. i know the two best, wonderful days of my life was when i adopted my babies. before i was a prosecutor, i was involved in domestic law here in the united states, and it can be extremely difficult. i can only magnify that by about a million times with the domestic law or international divorce law and custody.

but i think where we can start here is because you've answered all the questions eloquently, there's no question that i could ask that would elicit a resolution. but i think i speak for my colleagues, and it's been certainly the chairman has gone down this path once or twice, i think the place for you to start is with your representatives, your congressmen, your congresswomen, your senators. because we deal a great amount of time with foreign issues. we deal with ambassadors. given the fact that we're on, you know, judiciary, foreign affairs, homeland security. these all overlap. and in many cases having a congressman or a congresswoman or a senator involved may, to a

certain extent, expedite the matter. i see my colleague to the left of me who's been writing down names from state departments, and we can make phone calls. we can ask for meetings with these people. and if we have to demand what can and should be done, we're talking about international law, we're talking about treaties, we're talking about relationships or lack thereof with other countries. but i think we can initiate the task that you've undertaken. and it seems like many of you have undertaken these tasks yourselves. so the only thing that i can offer at this point is contact us from the beginning. we will play a vital role in this, communicating with our state department and our ambassadors.

i'm a new member of the congress, but i can tell you that i've spoken with numerous ambassadors addressing this specific issue with them. i presented to the ambassadors a situation that had nothing to do with why they were visiting me, but with what the united states had on their mind concerning other issues and got their attention rather quickly. so perhaps in the future we can assist that way at the very least and help you through the process until we get this, your particular issue resolved or until we get this resolved. concerning any abductions of american children. i yield my time. >> mr. marino, thank you very much. and, you know, you raise an extraordinarily important point that we can be advocates, and i

would encourage, if you vice president already, to be in -- if you haven't already, to be in contact with your individual member and two senates. in the last appropriations bill, we wrote language that was included in the bill that admonished, told, instructed the office of children's issues to inform a left-behind parent who files with them that a good advocate could be their own individual representative, but because of privacy act reasons they, you know, they can't automatically say to us -- because i'd like to know who in my district or in any state, for example, who's a left-behind parent. and i'm not sure how well that's being implemented. i asked for them, didn't necessarily get good answers back. but it does mean that we will then be on our backs just as our con stay wents -- constituents rightly should be on our backs to do our job. you know, we all serve the

people and not the other way around. i thank you all. if there's anything you'd like to add before we go to panel three, you've been tremendous witnesses. and i agree with my colleagues, our hearts go out to you, and we'll do everything we possibly can to keep the pressure on. yes, mr. bower. >> chairman, i understand that the foreign services committee has jurisdiction over bilateral aid. >> yes. >> and i would note that the aid as announced last week in president obama's speech would, therefore, fall under the jurisdiction of this committee, and i would ask that you make a stipulation that my children be returned before $1 of that aid is given to egypt. >> i thank you. point's well taken. [applause] both the corporations committee and the authorizing committees have jurisdiction, so thank you so much for that. appreciate anything else you'd like to add. i would also like to say to all of the ore left-behind parents here and others who couldn't be

here today, there will be additional hearings. we'll focus on the military side like michel elias. i did do an amendment back in 2009 that requires them, as mr. payne was pointing out so well, to begin educating and especially have people -- patricia apy will speak to this, i'm sure, when she testifies, so that people overseas and our jag corps are much better acquainted with the issue of child abduction to better serve those who are deployed overseas. so thank you so much, all three, for your tremendous testimony. thank you. [applause] i'd like to now introduce our third panelover experts beginning with ms. patricia apy who's a partner with the law firm of paris, apy and reese who specializes in complex child litigation. her qualifications for testifying for us are impressive

and extense i have, and i will reference only a few of them. she has litigated, been qualified as an expert witness and consulted on international family disputes throughout the world. ms. apy frequently consults and is regularly qualified as an expert on family dispute resolution in non-hague countries and risk factors for child abduction. she has also participated in numerous reported positions on hague treaties, she is also a consultant to the u.s. department of state and defense on the application of treaty law. she was also, as we all know, one of the late attorneys, certainly the u.s. attorney for david goldman and provided expert advice and counsel in that long, arduous case. next we'll hear from ms. kristin wells who provides lobbying services on a range of international affairs issues.

she is well known here on the foreign affairs committee as she previously served as deputy chief counsel to now-ranking member howard berman. in that capacity, she worked on international child abduction issues with me and with my staff and others including the crafting of h. res 105 which also included patrick braden's case of his abducted child, melissa. i introduced this resolution calling on the brazilian government to return sean to his father. it was pass m.d. the house in if may of 2009. and then we will hear from be jesse eaves who is a child protection policy adviser at world vision right here in washington. jesse coordinates the advocacy portfolio for issues of children -- child protection that includes child soldiers, exploitive child labor, child trafficking and child sexual exploitation. he works with world vision

programs around the world to insure child protection is integrated into programming and into national advocacy strategy. jesse also educates and mobilizes americans to take a stand against abuse, exploitation, neglect and violence towards children. ms. apy, the floor is yours. >> [inaudible] earlier in the testimony there was reference by one of the witnesses to the concept of a time capsule, and, um, that immediately resonated to the testimony i am about to give because, actually,11 years ago in may of 2000 i was asked by the clinton administration to travel to japan to begin discussions addressing the hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction. and to discuss international

child support obligations. ironically, both of those meetings were -- and i've since, obviously, been to japan most recently in the congressional delegation headed by congressman smith. both of those meetings were and discussions about the hague convention were immediately preceding the g8 summit. now, in 2000 i met with japanese officials, attorneys, judges, american diplomats and american military commanders and addressed the issues of parental kidnapping, the abduction convention, allegations of domestic violence and cases involving american service members. i left the meetings having been told by the japanese that they were considering the protections found in the hague treaty, and i was told my american diplomats that they were discouraged at what appeared to be little more than lip service. when i returned with congressman smith in february, the topics discussed were precisely the

same as the discussions that had been held 11 years earlier. i'm expecting to return to japan in july to provide on-site training to american judge advocates and civilian attorneys serving our military families abroad regarding international child custody considerations. but i think that given that we have had the announcements with respect to the hague convention, it's extraordinarily important to understand exactly what's being proposed and how it is and is not responsive to the issue of -- issues raised and the extraordinarily poised and heart-felt testimony you've heard from left-behind parents. encouraging a session to the hague convention is, of course, a laudable goal. for one thing, it is a positive step in international law to define and recognize parental kidnapping as a wrongful act which, believe me, as we sit here is not appreciated in

japan. it insures that the eventual resolution of a child custody dispute will be done in the place where the evidence is located regarding what is in the best interest of a child. that's the focus of the convention. that is the child's habitual residence. however, the moment that the japanese deposit the recession to the convention and request that recession to be accepted by the united states of america, a number of things will happen. and those have to be considered and appreciated particularly by the congress. one is that the people who are sitting behind me who have children who have been abducted to japan will be left in a position of legal limbo. now, in cases in which we have a sessions filed by countries that have a family law construct and a type of family law which has a

legal culture that appreciates custody and appreciates visitation, it consigns those whose children have been abducted to v.a. to litigate -- have to litigate their case in the country to which the child has been taken. that's not what i'm talking about. in this situation there is no remedy. promises of the japanese domestic law is going to be changed are welcome but not responsive to the issue that this is an international parental abduction. and, of course, it's not responsive to the real issue that's being raised here, and that is what happens when we are talking about issues of parental abduction that rise above the individual cases to a nation-state's issue? no parent should be in the position of having to become the united states department of state, which is, essentially, what you've heard described to

you here today. [applause] the treaty provides that the convention will apply between contracting states only to wrongful removals or retentions after its entry into force. so as an initial proposition that will cut off all of the individuals who, by the way, you have numbered incorrectly. non-hague countries are historically underreported by the united states department of state for good reasons. first of all, there are no central authorities in the countries involved which are keeping accurate numbers. we keep numbers based on who has applied for assistance through the state department. or applied for assistance for a central authority abroad. in the case of a nontreaty cigna to have, there is no repository, and many of the individuals who have been affected don't bother to file -- certainly historically -- with the united states department of state

because there were no services that were provided, no advantages to having done so. so as a result, you have a whole host and percentage of cases who are simply unreported. the second issue is particularly as it relates to american military members abductions from our bases in japan, for example, are considered internal domestic abductions and, therefore, aren't considered as international abductions despite the fact that an american service member may have been living on one of our bases. so if purpose of this hearing is in part to identify how we can improve the rate of return of children, the very first thing you have to do is have a legitimate way of identifying how many children you have and what the problems are. the other issue is that if asession is deposited as it is expected with extensive

reservations, it will be a lot worse than form over substance. in a recent press account issued in japan, there were assurances that the proposed legislation would specify that returns will be denied in the case of child or spousal abuse, and there would be -- and i'll quote here -- no negative effects on the welfare of the child. let me tell you that what that means is that it implies a best interest determination which is prohibited by the express language of the treaty. in other words, it converts it from an abduction case to a child custody case. and, finally, the chairman of the japanese federation of bar associations cautioned, and i'll quote, urging the government not to rush into concluding the treaty citing the need for thorough discussion by experts and related parties, closed quote. well, as i indicate in my written remarks, it would be difficult to imagine since the dialogue regarding the treaty was alleged to have begun before

july of 2000 when the world's leaders met in okinawa and assurances were made to president clinton what further internal discussions could be conducted which would do anything other than delay and obstruct the return of abducted children. the recommendations which are included in my written remarks include as it relates to not just the japanese issue, but any, um, offering of an asession to not merely accept the asession without some critical analysis which has been the policy of the united states department of state. we accept the asession, and then we worry about how it actually works. i must caution, it's a disabling precedent -- dangerous precedent. american judges rely on asessions as evidence that if they allow a child to visit grandma in a hague country like turkey, that the child will be

returned in accordance with the hague convention. despite the fact that this may be no -- there may be no central authority that has been provided, despite the fact there's no political or actual will on the part of that country to do so. i recommend that in advance of full compliance with the treaty that the united states department of state encourage the return of children through a number of diplomatic mechanisms. one is that they enter into a memorandum of understanding which is drafted to include an meet protocol for the -- immediate protocol for children alleged to have been abducted to japan, within japan, as well as japanese children alleged to have been abducted to the united states. by setting this model protocol, issues of particular concern to japanese legislators could be addressed in advance of finalizing the language in domestic legislation. so if, if we're going to start

talking about issues, for example, of domestic violence which are genuine concerns and issues of spousal and child abuse which are genuine concerns by having an mou, the good faith nature of those concerns as opposed to what we have seen in many, many-of these cases and that is pretext to avoid returns can be ferreted out, and the japanese legislators who are dealing with the rewrite of their domestic law can have the benefit of experts many the united states -- in the united states who are fact sill with these issues and create an objective and credible mechanism for insuring that such allegations are seriously addressed, protections assured, mutual recognition encouraged and preventing the use of false allegations to reduce the effectiveness of the treaty. we have to deal with the issues of american service members and their families and assist judge advocates in command authority with tools to advise american service members and japanese national family members of reasonable and enforceable

resolutions. and we have to assess japan's genuine commitment to the process of fighting international parental abduction by setting objective standards which can be evaluated and can be addressed critically, if necessary. this would provide a template for other countries which are considering the steps approaching signing on to the hague convention. we have other nations particularly and, again, my, my written remarks will address it, and i know we are short on time, but there was a comment made about state craft and the issues of state craft as it relates to these, this particular problem. we have countries like pakistan -- not only do we have significant issues of aid, but we have huge populations of pakistani-americans who have

relationships and travel regularly back and forth. the united kingdom has entered into bilateral agreements with the pakistanis to deal with child abduction issues. we should be in that same position. now, again, historically the united states department of state has taken a position that they will not entertain a memorandum of understanding because, historically, it was viewed to dilute the global effectiveness of getting everyone onboard, if you will, to the hague convention. the problem with that is the countries now, the non-hague countries, in vast majority that have not entered into the hague have unique issues with respect to the religious and cultural elements of their law. which make it necessary, very frankly, to find other ways to assure that they can become full, reciprocal partners you should the hague. a -- under the hague. a memorandum of understanding provides that opportunity, and

the department of state should immediately enter into discussions with countries that have indicated they want to do that like the united arab emirates, india and pakistan. finally, with regard to reciprocity and the comments that were made with respect to the united states department of state and the office of children's issues and the perception of american left-behind parents that they're not being advocated for. there is no question that the united states department of state office of children's issues has as a client not the individual parent, but the united states of america. that is the reality. the problem is not that parents, in my experience, want them to be lawyers or want them to be embroiled in individual family litigation. they want them to do their job

which is to address the diplomatic issues and efforts, collection of information and accountability that an individual litigant cannot possibly do. in order for them to have the tools to do that, there have to be some very concrete things that are done. one is there has to be in realtime an acknowledgment when a country is not acting in compliance with the treaty and call that out in more than the report bomb. form: that is that reciprocity has to be something that an american judge and american parents who are formulating settlements of custody disputes can rely upon. legislative efforts in this body and in the other body must provide mechanisms for diplomatic actions that deal with the systemic lack of reciprocity. these parents can't do it themselves. the protections outlined in now number 1940, the smith bill,

provides an objective, transparent process to evaluate reciprocity which is the first step. is this really a reciprocal relationship anymore? if it's not, like in ecuador where there is no central authority anymore, an american judge in the illinois might want to know that there's no way to get a child back because an american parent is going to have to hire three lawyers to be able to do it because there is no central authority by way of example. in circumstances in which there are persistent and historical misuse of this process and treaty, other american parents and judges who are similarly situated need to know that. no one should have to hire experts to appear in family courts which right now they do in order to get protective orders to prevent abductions. the only -- the work of this body in having resolutions which addressed brazil and japan have

been used in hundreds of cases around the united states to provide the opportunity for parents and judges to formulate protective orders. but you shouldn't have to do that. you should be able to, i mean, this body should not have to go to work on every individual child abduction case. there should be a process that evaluates that a country is not in compliant, enter into, if necessary, an mou which addresses the deficiency and allows for an objective review. [applause] a reasonable system of diplomatic consequences must be available to the secretary of state and the president of the united states so that no country may engage in the repeated and flagrant violation of its treaty obligations without meaningful review. in conclusion, and i appreciate the extraordinary amount of time that this issue has been given by this committee, and i will tell you that as the prior

committee hearings and commission hearings have made incredible impacts on the operation of domestic law in the united states. and so i congratulate the chairman and the members of this subcommittee for spending the time that they have. you're already aware that two of my client, have offered testimony to you today. i am most certainly not the only family lawyer working to see that families and children are protected from the scourge of international parental abduction, and i cringed when earlier there was a moment or two of concern about the motivation of lawyers. but i need to say that the american bar association family law section and international sections in particular have been asked by the president of the aba at the request of congressman smith to review the legislation that will be, that has been presented and the issues and to make recommendation on this legislation and other actions of body. additionally, the american

chapter of the international academy of matrimonial lawyers have offered expertise both in evaluating the proposed legislation and in providing assistance to the united states department of state. both the members of the aba and the iaml have given thousands of hours of pro bono assistance in support of the return of abducted children and in counsel to our colleagues at the united states department of state. i'm personally appreciative of the continued willingness of secretary janis jacobs to entertain my concerns and those of my colleagues in attempting to address these complex issues on a case-by-case basis. however, and this is the takeaway, her accessibility is no substitute for a genuine, identifiable and transparent process to address issues involving all similarly-situated parents diplomatically. my colleagues continue to provide incredible insight and advice and a willingness to work with the members of congress to improve the working of the treaty. the comment to contact your

congressperson is only part of step. the members of this committee, i do not believe, are representative of what usually happens, and that is the people behind me contact their congressperson who contacts oci who sends a self-serving letter that, basically, goes through administrative steps that have been taken and nothing more. there is no advocacy associated with that. my observations during my most recent visit to japan reveal the extraordinary access and contact that congressman smith was able to achieve which undoubtedly advanced a serious dialogue with the japanese government in which we are now engaged. i'm honored to have been given the opportunity to participate in those meetings and to testify before this subcommittee in its efforts to bring every abducted child home, and i thank you. [applause] >> ms. apy, thank you very much.

ms. wells. >> chairman smith, reactioning member -- ranking member payne, representative marino and members of the subcommittee, i'm honored to be with you today to share my thoughts and is concerns about the parental abduction of american children to foreign countries. i'm testifying on my own behalf, and in no way should my comments be attributed to my firm or any of its clients. my written testimony provides an overview of policy issues around the international abduction of children, and a number of these have been discussed already, so i'm going to shorten my oral comments today. but my testimony does highlight some issues with the hague convention, it addresses obstacles associated with non-hague convention cases, discusses some of the challenges and improvements that have occurred at the department of state, but i'm going to discuss that a bit more. we had highlighted issues relating to abductions in africa and japan and make some suggestions on some practical actions that congress and other

parts of the u.s. government can take to improve the u.s. government's response to abduction cases. i will note that my testimony focuses primarily on abducted american children and that, rightfully, is the focus today. but it is important to note that the hague convention also covers non-u.s. citizen children who are residing in the united states at the time of their abduction irrespective of their immigration status here. and also as a party to the convention, the united states is obliged to help return the hundreds of children who are abducted from other countries into the united states each year from around the world, and i think this is an issue that the committee and subcommittee should continue to look at. we are rightfully concerned about u.s. citizens and u.s. constituents, but we also need, i think, to take a look at how our country is doing in responding to requests from other countries. um, the convention, as we've discussed, is an imperfect instrument, but it has success fully helped to resolve a

number of child abduction cases around the world, and it has returned children to their left-behind partials. and for every parent who has gotten their child through this mechanism, i'm sure they're grateful of its existence despite its sometimes low success rate. it does provide a means for countries to communicate with each other and identifies authorities for addressing these cases. it clarifies some of the internationally agreed-upon values of focusing on the child's best interests, and i don't mean as ms. apy noted that other courts should be making that determination, but it agrees that that is an important principle and that principle should be best met by the jurisdictional court where the child habitually resided. it also presses governments to promptly return a child and embodies promises made by the contracting states to assist other countries in locating children abducted into their territory. there are too many cases, as

we've heard today, where the hague countries fail to return children to their state of habitual residence, and the hague convention does often fail in its primary objective. the unfortunate delays in return and sometimes the complete failure in returning children result in a number of problems in the convention itself at times. one of the problems is the lack of an effective enforcement mechanism, and i think some of the discussions about the use of trade and other mechanisms of bilateral power or influence are in response to the fact that there is no enforcement process. but the hague conference on international private law while it has no enforcement mechanism, it could still continue to discuss ways in which enforcement could be further enhanced. not just in the interests of the united states, but for all nations that are cig any stories -- signatories. in particular, though, this issue of enforcement is particularly complicated when a child is a dual national, and as

we've often seen or heard in these cases that were described today, even when a child is not a dual national, they often become that as part of the effort to take or keep them in another country. in addition to the issue of enforcement, there's also insufficient oversight of the convention, the mechanism -- or i would say i'd encourage the committee to look at the mechanism by which the hague conference reviews its own operations around the world. not just in the united states. because the truth of the matter is that while the united states doesn't have any obligation to, um, oversee or make particular comments about these matters, it's in our interest to do so. we have, as a country, tremendous legal expertise and resources. and so i think if we can look at ways in which we can also influence the hague conference to either take more actions or initiate new discussions that might not have been had or continue to help progress their -- i shouldn't say their

agenda, but issues that we think are important such as oversight and how that oversight then is turned into actionable review that can improve the hague system as a whole. i think that's a useful role for the united states to play. although the convention is over 30 years old, a myriad of interpretation issues are also evidenced in u.s. case law and other countries. the fact that nations and courts interpret the language of the convention differently has dramatic effects on these cases and often results in children not being returned. there are different interpretations of habitual residence, debates about where the child was actually living. there are questions about whether the abduction was wrongful as was noted in the one of the witness' testimony where the abducting spouse said, you know, this isn't wrong, i'm the parent. and that's a frequent reply not only by the parents, but sometimes by foreign judicial systems as well. and yet the convention has some clear language on these, these

matters. but i guess i shouldn't say clear. it might be clear to one reader, but then it's read in so many different ways in the different countries. this is a problem with the convention and how we come to some standards that can be uniformly accepted, um, by both the convention and then applied by judges around the world. this would help tremendously, but i think it's going to be a long haul. nonetheless, i think it's something for congress to think about, look at and to talk with the state department and other u.s. government officials about. a critical area of interpretation regarding the hague convention is a provision that requires that children not be rushed to a -- returned to a place where they would be harmed. this is the grave risk of harm exemption, and it says they cannot be returned to a place where they would be exposed to physical or psychological harm. this language is very critical in domestic violence cases, and there's a fair bit of u.s. case law on this as well, but also conflicting case law.

so in my more lengthy submission of testimony, i've made a suggestion that the department of justice be more involved in looking at how some of this language is interpreted by u.s. courts so that even if we can't prevent the fact that some of this language might be interpreted differently in the united states and then senegal and in thailand, we can at least try to make some uniform analysis of how the language of the convention is interpreted in the united states. but i also need to note that domestic violence is frequently alleged and used as a tool, unfortunately, by some of either the abducting parents or some of the government officials that get involved in the case. there are often concerns of domestic violence raised in cases where there's absolutely no evidence of that. um, it's a false claim, of course, not only hurts those children involved, but hurts -- it take away attention from cases where domestic violence really is at issue.

um, in terms of non-hague cases, without the hague convention left-behind parents face tremendous hurdles as you, chairman smith, well know. they might not be able to identify where their child is located. they may seek to get a u.s. custody or visitation order recognized in a foreign jurisdiction but have faced great hurdles in doing so. they're often not able to even effectively file a case in another jurisdiction, or if it's filed, it may not get heard. sometimes it is difficult to identify who in the foreign government has the ability, power or desire to either locate or help return the child. and, um, the hague convention -- without the hague convention as a tool to encourage foreign governments to return a child, custody is most likely to be decided by a foreign court order using the child's presence there. as ms. apy noted, i wanted to also highlight that the convention is not, however, supposed to be a custody-determining document. it is not a regime to decide

where the child should live and what is the best overall outcome. it is a document to determine what court has the jurisdiction to decide the case. and as you noted in your testimony, this seems to be an issue, also, of grave -- great confusion among a lot of the states that have signed the hague convention. and to me it seems to be a matter of needing substantially-additional training and guidance that our government can be involved in, other governments might be involved in as well. but, um, that needs to be centralized and organized through the hague convention in the netherlands. um, i did want to talk about the department of state. in studying this issue over the years, i have heard negative experiences faced by left-behind parents and their attorneys. um, there have also been, as you know, a number of changes at the department of state, and i'd like to talk about those, but i must say having heard the testimony today that i'm very

saddened to hear that some of those changes have not impacted these families. or that the impact is not as visible as it should be. and so i think there's no doubt that this committee, the state department immediate to continue to do the -- need to continue to do the hard work of frying to -- trying to figure out how to get the system right. parents are still not feeling that they're being serviced, that their needs are being taken as seriously as they ought to be, and as we've noted, that they have an advocate on their behalf. some of the -- i will just highlight some of the structural changes, however, as the committee may be aware the special adviser for international children's issues has been appointed. and although this is, um, and it's currently held by ambassador susan jacobs, it is also a position designed to help elevate this issue and help coordinate between the secretary of state's office, the office of children's issues and other aspects of the state department. um, i understand, um, mr. smith,

that you have a proposal for an even higher level ambassador and potentially a new office, and i am happy to look at that. um, i think that this initial position has, um, from what i've been hearing has helped garner attention, and i think this ambassador has been able to play, um, a particular advocacy role in the diplomatic community that's been important. um, but there may be enhancements either in the changing the position or changing her, um, powers that might be useful as well. um, case management has also been, um, restructured to some extent at the state department. um, in the past there were, last few years about 20 foreign service officers who handled the heavy case load of about 150 cases a year. um, that has now changed, and they now have up to about 100 officers -- not all of them are foreign service, some of them are civil service -- um, and they now handle no more than 75

cases. we should be seeing improvements in the reports from the families as a result of this. and so i think it's a concern that we're not and, um, i'm particularly concerned that this is some of what i heard when i was working on the committee as well. i think when you meet with the state department, um, i believe that they are very earnest. i actually, i think that the people who are working on these cases, um, do understand the importance of what they're doing and are, um, doing, are putting forth their best efforts for these families. but there's a gap to be bridged because their perceptions or our -- your perceptions as policy policymakers and as people looking at oversight of the agency, you're going to hear different things on one side and a different set of things from the families. i would encourage the committee to consider possibly having the state department testify on this issue and be able to explain some of their limitations.

um, for example, um, there's several notes about, um, the state department not providing families information on how they contacted the, um, abducting spouse or identified where the child was. um, i suspect that there are limitations on the, um, state department officers around that. there might be other limitations as has been discussed under privacy act issues, and it may well be that legislation needs to overturn some of that. um, but i think it would be helpful if there's a way in which -- and i'm sure that many have been asking for this for years, but if we can still look to bridge this gap so that the families feel like they are getting the information they need, they understand better the bureaucracy of the state department, and they also, um, don't look to the state department as their adversaries, but as their friends. because i think in the end only by working together through the, um, administration at the state department, congress, the families, the nonprofit organizations, the attorneys

involved, um, as ms. apy noted, there have been tremendous strides, and i think more can continue to be done if everyone tries to stay on the same team. um, i was going to -- i had a few comments about japan which i'm going to, um, shorten tremendously since i think it's been very well covered. but i will say that i've been told that the embassy of japan in the last year or so has become more engaged with this issue. i'm, in fact, the day that i met with them, um, was the day that the sean goldman story broke on the news while i was in the meeting with the embassy. and at that time, um -- this is several years ago -- um, the concept of how to work on the convention and what to do was one that they responded to with some vagaries. and they noted that it was being looked at at the ministry of justice, but that was the same answer that had been given for several years. um, now i understand that they are, um, more aggressively involved in discussions here in

the united states, um, about hague convention. but what i haven't heard yet is that they are more aggressively involved in discussions about individual cases. so i would reiterate what you, ms. apy and others have said that, absolutely, as they go forward there has to be a decision around the existing cases, and there has to be whether it's in the hague convention asession or in some other document an agreement. and, of course, we have as primary interests the american children, but there are children in many other countries, from many other countries who are in japan. and so this is an internationally-concerning issue. um, i will just add that i was asked by, um, by congressman payne if i could make some comments about africa, and given the committee that, um, we're speaking with, i'd like to do that. um, most of the nations in africa are not signatories to the hague convention. at presence, the united states only has four partners there,

zimbabwe, south africa, maw rishes and they face unique challenges both in terms of identifying where children are, operating with the central authorities in those governments and, in particular, operating in governments where there is no hague partner. um, the road to asession in the -- of the hague convention is also challenging in some of these african nations where, um, there are problems of inefficient and ineffective government structures that have hampered the consideration of the treaty. um, in addition, the hague commission does have a project on africa to look at this issue and try to make strides in that region of the world. um, but we've, there's been an identification at least that because of the critical role of personal relationships in africa -- and i've heard that this has also played a large part in asia -- that having a real regional approach that's

individually based is important. so having a conference in the netherlands or in washington, d.c. is not going to help get countries in africa to start looking at the hague convention. it will require a lot of direct outreach on an individual level. but i will note that children abducted to africa, um, their profile, the profiles of their cases look somewhat different. the african cases tend top of african immigrants who have come to the united states either temporarily or permanently where both parents are from an african nation, and the child is abducted by one parent, taken back to the home country and is often left with extended family; grandparents, aunts, uncles or people that in the united states would be considered friends but are very much relatives in the construct of an african family. um, and there are a notable number of -- not, i'm sorry, a small number, but a notable presence of cases where female genital cutting is a concern of the left-behind parent.

as you can imagine the logistics when a child disappears in countries where there may not be sufficient infrastructure, where telecommunications is still developing despite the availability of cell phones, where internet might be spare is a challenge not just for the state department in following up on cases, but very much a challenge for the left-behind participants. and, of course, challenges in weak judicial systems that exist in many of these countries is also a problem. but also, and this is mainly my last point on this, that, um, the left-behind parent as african immigrants here in the united states face challenges because of that status as well. they tend to not necessarily live in large communities of african immigrants. it's difficult from, for example, being a mexican-american living on this side of the u.s. border and near the border where there might be lots of mexican-americans and lots of resources to help support you and learn more about

how you can politicize or get media attention for your issue. um, so getting, um, attention from law enforcement, getting attention from the legal system, um, and interacting with the political system of the united states' congress but even at a local level, state and local politicians is much more of a challenge. and so what i've heard and my understanding from, um, speaking with some people in the agency is that these cases are not getting that kind of attention, and they're not getting the kind of advocacy that has, um, fortunately, been developed around some of the cases in the asia, europe and other places among the families. um, lastly i'll just note that i do have a number of suggestions of response from congress. i would just like to note a few. um, there has been a gao report on this issue. it was done in 2000, and i think the issue is ripe for a review by gao. although in truth you might also

because of the time that gao takes, you might want to also look at an independent report. the state department has at times been given funding to issue a grant and do an independent report from an outside attorney or set of attorneys. um, there might be a way to do something like that to really effectively look at this issue of communication between the parents and the agency and really everything about what the state department is doing, um, on this. but in truth i think that as i've noted, there's areas of cooperation with the department of homeland security, areas of cooperation with the department of justice that are important to look at, too, and what we heard today about tsa. we know the problems with the exit system, but there are, for example, ways to, um, you know, to flag a u.s. pass port. maybe there are ways that a u.s. child's name can be flagged with the airline regardless of what country the passport comes from. that still might be thwarted when the name of the child is

changed, but as it is right now if an airline brings a person to the united states who does not have a visa, the airline has to pay a penalty to the united states and has to return that person at the airline's expense. so there's a disincentive for them to allow people on the planes without appropriate passports and visas. maybe there's a similar way to create a list of children who should not be traveling internationally. it's very tricky, but i think that having some sort of discussion between the state department, the other agencies in congress that's almost more of a working group approach, um, involving families, um, and maybe these hearings at the beginning of that where you can start to tease out and work on how some of these ideas could be brought into policy that could improve the overall operations. and my last point would just be, um, that i think the thing that i would love to see members of congress do more of and be that i know you're a master of, chairman smith, is to make sure that these issues get mentioned to every foreign dignitary that

the members meet with. and i don't necessarily mean every country, but if there's a country -- if committee pays attention to these issues and knows, for example, that one of the vast majority of our cases are with mexico, um, then when the mexican officials are here, it can be raised. and it can be raised by one member or, you know, in a larger setting. but i think, um, that would help a lot. and as we've seen your attention to this issue has been a tremendous help for these families, so thank you. [applause] >> ms. wells, thank you very much. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman and ranking member payne, thank you for holding hearing today and for inviting me. i, you know, want to acknowledge the incredibly generous amount of time you've given to this topic, so i'll summarize my remarks and just ask that my full written statement be made part of the record. my name is jesse eaves, and i am the child protection policy adviser for world vision usa, a christian relief add slow casey

organization -- advocate si organization. this work includes programs that work to prevent and respond to abuse, neglect, exploitation and violence against children and advocating for effective systems and laws that can provide a safety net for vulnerable populations. today i've been asked to bring a global perspective on child protection, especially as it relates to preventing and responding to illegal movement of children, particularly in fragile states. i want to thank you again, mr. chairman, for your leadership in be working to protect children not only here in the u.s., but around the world. you have been behind some of the most important pieces of child-focused legislation in our nation's history, and can the child protection systems within our country are stronger for it. as this hearing has shown, powerfully so, we still have much more to do, and that is also, sadly, the case for the vast majority of countries around the world. of particular concern are those countries in a postconflict or postemergency context where children are often found at their most vulnerable and informal and formal systems that

should protect them have either failed or never existed to begin with. this hearing provides an important opportunity to address not only how the united states can deal with issues like international child abduction, but also opens the door to put systems in place that can prevent and respond to all cases of abuse, neglect, exploitation, abduction and violence against children. governments in if fragile states are often unwilling or unable to provide the formal services or support the informal mechanisms required to protect their most vulnerable populations. the issue of identification documents is of extreme importance. in fact, something as simple as birth registration can determine whether a child remains in the care of those that love them or slips through the cracks never to be seen again. for example, the birth registration rate in sudan is around 33%. in south sudan almost 300,000 people have returned to join nearly ten million southern sudanese to take part in the creation of a new country that already has an incredibly low

capacity to handle such an influx. with 60% of detainees being under 18, unaccompanied and separated children are less likely to find a caring home and are extremely vulnerable to abuse. we now see homeless child populations increasing in the urban centers particularly in the southern capital of jewish baa. with no identification and no way to find their families, these children are extremely vulnerable to abuses that include abduction, recruitment into armed militias and sexual or labor exploitation. having proper documentation and officials trained in how to identify suspicious behavior is crucial to protecting vulnerable children, especially in fragile states. since this january 2010 earthquake in haiti, many organizations including world vision and others like our partner organization heartland alliance have worked to train border guards to prevent the illegal movement of children. there have been several documented cases where