historians. eyewitness accounts of event that is define the nation. c-span 3, coverage of congress and american history tv. coming up next, a house hearing of kids taken to another country. later, remarks by the president of the world bank. now, a house foreign affair committee on international child abduction. last year, congress pass zed legislation requiring the state department to issue annual

reports and to take action in returning children abducted to other countries. witnesses included officials from the state department, the national center for missing and exploited children and parents of children held in foreign countries. this is about 2:15. senate committee will come to order. good afternoon. let me apologize for starting late. we did have a series of 14 votes in succession so to our distinct witnesses i apologize for the lateness getting urndsway. i want to thank all of you for

being here today and all of our left behind parents and those here in spirit and those deeply concerned about their abducted child and thank you for joining us this afternoon to review the department of state's first annual report under the david goldman international child abduction and return act. international parental child abduction rips children from their homes and families and whisks them away from a foreign land alienating them from the love and care from the parent left behind. child abduction is child abuse and continues to plague families across the united states. every year an estimated 1,000 american children are unlawfulfully removed from their homes by one of their parents and taken across international borders. less than half of these children ever come home. the problem is so consequential and the state department's

previous approach of quite diplomacy that congress unanimously passed the goldman act last year to give teeth for request for return and for access. these actions increase in severity and range from official protests through diplomatic channels to extradition and the suspension of development, security or other foreign assistance. the goldman act is a law calculated to get results as we did in the return of sean goldman from brazil in 2008. but a law is only as good as its implementation. broken hearted parents across america waited four years for the goldman act to become law and still await full u.s. government implementation of that law. the state department's first annual report that we are reviewing today should be a road map for action. the state department must get this report right in order for the law to be an effective tool. if the report fails to accurately identify problem countries, the actions i mentioned above are not triggered.

countries should be listed as if -- if they have high numbers of cases, 30% or more, that have been pending over a year, or if they regularly fail to enforce return orders or have failed to take appropriate steps in even one single abduction case pending for more than a year. once these countries are properly identified the secretary of state then determines which of the aforementions actions the u.s. will apply to the country in order to encourage the timely resolution of abduction and access cases. while the state department has choice of which actions to apply and can waive actions for up to 180 days, the state department does not have discretion over whether to report accurately to congress on the country's record or whether the country is objectively a noncompliant nation.

as we have seen in the human trafficking context and i would note parenthetically that i authored the trafficking victims protection act of 2000 and the goldman act, an accurate accounting of a country's record especially in comparison with other countries can do wonders to prod much needed reforms. accurate reporting is also critical to family court judges across the country. and parents considering their child's travel to a foreign country where abduction or access problems are a risk. the stakes are high. misleading or incomplete information could mean the loss of another american child to abduction. for example, a judge might look at the report filled with zeros in the unresolve cases category, erroneously conclude that a particular country is not of concern and give permission to an estranged spouse to return to their country with the child for a vacation. the taking parent then abducts the child and the left behind

parent spends his or her life savings and many years trying to get their child returned to the united states all of which could have been avoided with accurate reporting on the danger. i'm very concerned that the first annual report contains major gaps and even misleading information, especially when it comes to countries with which we have the most intractable abduction cases. for instance, the report indicates that india, which has consistently been in the top five destinations for abducted american children, had 19 new cases in 2014. 22 resolved cases and no unresolved cases. however, we know from the national center for missing and exploited children that india has 53 open abduction cases and 51 have been pending for more than one year. the report also shows zero new cases in tunisia for the last year. three resolves cases and zero

unresolved cases. and yet miss barbirou will testify to her more than three year battle to bring her children home from tunisia. again the national center for missing and exploited children show six abductions, all of which have been for more than a year. nowhere is the disconnect more clear than in the handling of japan, a country that has never issued or enforced a return order for the single of the hundreds of american children abducted there and not listed as a country showing failings to cooperate in returns. in march, nearly two months before the annual report was released, i chaired a hearing of this sub-committee featuring ambassador susan jacobs in which it was made perfectly clear that congress expect that is japan will be evaluated not just on the handling of new abduction

cases after joining the convention last year, but all abduction cases including the more than 50 cases i and others have been raising with state for at least the last five years. among those cases is that of sergeant michael elias. he has not seen his children jade and michael jr. mike as was a mean who saw combat in iraq. his wife who worked in the consulate used documents to kidnap their children then aged four and two in defiance of a court order telling michael on the phone there was nothing he could do because, as she said, and i quote, my country, that is japan, will protect me. her country worried about the designation in the report sent a high level delegation in march to meet with the ambassador and explain why japan should be excused from being noncompliant

despite the fact more than one year after signing the convention of international child abduction japan has a zero, zero returns to the united states. just before the report was released, two weeks late, takahashio cada, secretary to the ministers of foreign affairs, told the japanese diet he had been in consultation with the state department and, i quote him here, because we strive to make an explanation to the u.s. side, i hope that the report contents will be based on our country's efforts, closed quote. in other words, japan got a pass from the state department and escaped the list of countries facing action by the u.s. for their failure to resolve abduction cases based on what mr. okada referred to as efforts, not results. sergeant michael alias's country has failed to protect him and his children.

he's seen zero progress in his case over the last year. the seventh year of his heart wrenching ordeal and i traveled with his mother, the child's grandparents to japan and met that brick wall that he has faced now for seven years in trying to help move that case along. and yet the state department can't bring itself to hold japan accountable by naming japan as an offender in the annual report. it is disappointing, it is discouraging and i believe it is disgraceful. the report whitewashes japan's egregious record on parental child abduction. and to add insult to injury, the report table that was to show the unresolved abductions in japan failed to include a single one of the more than 50 cases, 36 of which have been dragging on for more than five years according to the national center for missing and exploited children. instead the table listed japan as having a 43% resolution rate. japan again has never issued an

enforced return order for an american child. these young victims, these american victims like their left behind parents are american citizens who need the help of their government. the goldman act is clear that all return requests submitted to the foreign ministry and are resolved 12 months later are to be counted against japan, not just three months. nearly 100% of the abduction cases in japan remain open and the reports conclusion of 43% resolution is truly indefensible. and not a single left behind parent pursuing access was allowed in person contact with their child over the last year. the goldman act has given the state department new -- and i would argue -- powerful tools to bring japan and other countries to the resolution table. the goal is not to disrupt relations but to heal the painful rifts cause by international child abduction. and i remember when i was doing the trafficking victim

protection act and there was arguments against the act and took three years to become law, this would hurt our relations with allies if these women would be sold like chattel as part of human trafficking schemes. i persisted and those alongside me persisted and we got the bill passed and friends don't let friends commit human rights abuses and we need to speak out with clarity and boldness on these facts. i do appreciate the departments presence here today to discuss ways to improve the report and ensure it fulfills the purposes for which it is intended, namely the prevention of abduction and the reunification of thousands of american families that have suffered forced separation for far too long. i would like to yield to my good friend mr. donovan, former prosecutor, and a distinguished new member of the u.s. house.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. as the chairman said, i'm the second newest member of the house. i was elected and sworn in four weeks ago. but in my previous life i was a district attorney and my experience with custodial abductions was limited to within our own nation. so i look forward to hearing from the parents and i thank you for coming to share your grief with us. i'm also the father of a newborn three week old daughter. so my heart goes out to you and i also look forward to hearing from our distinguished panelists to hear what our government it doing for you. thank you very much. >>u uch. i would like to introduce our +u two distinguished panelists beginning with karen christian son, the deputy of state for overseas services since august of 2014. most recently she was the ministers counselor for the counselor of affairs at the u.s.

embassy in berlin where she coordinated operations at several posts in germany and prior to that in manila and also served in washington within the bureau of counselor affairs in the visa offices and over seas she's served in london, bucca rest and soul and in the counselor division and in the bureau of human resources and her background will be made part of the record. and then we'll hear from mr. henry hand who assumed his duties as director of children's issues on september 3rd of 2014. his previous assignment was council general in kiev, ukraine. mr. hand is a career foreign service officer and joined the department in 1998. he was promoted to senior foreign service in 2013. his previous postings including

the american institute in taiwan, the consulate general in shanghai embassy talon and embassy nickasea. and also served in the department of bureau of consulate affairs as a country desk officer on central african affairs. the floor is yours miss christienensen christensen. >> chairman smith and distinguished members of the sub-committee, thank you for the chance to discuss international child abduction and to review the implementation of the sean and david goldman child abduction and prevention and return act and the department of states first annual report under this new law. the department values your continuing interest and support of our efforts to prevent international parental child abduction. to facilitate the return of children to their homes and to strengthen and expand the hague abduction convention to include more partner countries.

our mission is to assist children and families involved in international pa rental child abduction and to prevent its occurrence. in my career i've worked with many families affected by child abduction and seen firsthand the pain it causes. this new law already is encouraging more countries to consider being -- becoming party to the hague convention or to improve performance under the convention if they are already a party. the u.s. interagency working group, for example on prevention mandated by the law has already met twice hosted by special adviser for children's issues am barbassador susan jacobs and already prevented abductions. we devoted significant effort to analyzing the new law to adapting policies to implement it and to publish the first annual report. we fully recognize that this first report will not meet all expectations.

and we welcome feedback from you and other members of congress and parents who are seeking return of their children and from the public on how we can improve future it rations of this report. as the law requires, 90 days following the annual report the department will submit to congress a report on actions taken in response to countries demonstrating patterns of noncompliance. mr. chairman and members of sub-committee, we are committed to using every tool we have available to prevent and resolve international child abductions. we need and appreciate your continuing support, including through your feedback on our work and on our reports to you. so thank you and i look forward to your questions later. so i'll turn it over to henry hand. >> members of the sub-committee. thank you. oh, sorry. chairman smith, distinguish members of the sub-committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the sub-committee regarding our work in the office

of children's issues to prevent and resolve international child abductions and to implement the 1980 hague convention and the civil aspects of international child abduction and the international child abduction remedies act and the sean and david goldman international child abduction and recovery act. i welcome the chance to provide further detail and answer your question about the department of state's first annual report under the new law. our office worked hard since the new law was enacted in august to analyze and translate provisions into concrete actions such as collecting 40 new data fields for every new case. our focus was on ensuring this first report contained all of the information required by the law. the information in the 2014 report naturally is different than the previous annual compliance reports on international parental child abduction which were drafted under previous legislation. the 2014 report represents a

first initial effort that we understand does not meet all of yours and others expectations. we filed it under a short guideline and worked diligently and simultaneously to make sure as we implemented the law we maintained the office on going work and supported families affected by international child abduction. mr. chairman, distinguished member of the sub-committee, we are committed to fully implementing the law and making the most effective tool we can in service of our shared goals and preventing child abduction and bringing abducted children home. and we appreciate the feedback we have received and seek your comments and questions on the work we are doing. thank you and we welcome your questions. >> thank you very much. miss christensen thank you very much. could you, miss christensen. tell us, in what ways has the state department made japan, the

ministry of foreign affairs, aware of the 50 cases aware of the cases previous to the hague abduction convention and do we give their foreign ministry a list of abduction cases? is that how we do it? >> sir, mr. chairman, we have discussed and raised specific cases with the japanese foreign ministry. right now the japanese foreign ministry, there is the central authority which work on hague cases and other parts of the foreign ministry which has the lead on pre-hague cases. we have raised the issue of prehague cases with both sides and raised senior levels of the japanese government and continue to do so.

>> since that is the case, it is -- perhaps an oversight but perhaps more than that, that the goldman act makes very clear that there must be an accounting of all unresolved cases and i'll read you the pertinent part of the -- it is title one of the department of state actions. that each annual report shall include a list of all countries in which there was one or more abduction cases during the preceding calendar year relating to a child who is residing in the united states, including a description of whether -- and then it goes through more detailed information. but the idea is that there is one case and the whole preceding calendar year. and yet in reading the report, on page 17, it says japan, abduction cases, unresolved cases, zero. and yet elsewhere in the report

it does mention the 50. but the way of evading, putting japan on the list and there is 22 countries, as you know, since you compiled it who are on the list who have shown a pattern of noncompliance, to somehow just exclude these 50 plus cases that information has been given over to the japanese government as just i understand kated. i know that because i've been talking to our people both in tokyo as well as at the state department here. they do make representation on behalf of individuals, and yet it is baffling beyond words unresolve cases, zero. how did that happen? >> sir, one of the things that we have been working very hard on in the past several months since the law was enacted is -- in devising the report that calls for new data, data that we were not using before, the

legislation also contains some new definitions. and one of the issues that we've encountered is that the definition -- in the definitions of the law, and unresolved abduction case is one that remains unresolved for more than 12 months after the date of completed application for return is submitted to the judicial or administrative authorities and in our extense i have review and what we found is that it was determined we cannot include any non-hague cases where there was no application for return. there was an application for custody and access and so on. but again let me reiterate we look forward to working with you and others to make this report as comprehensive, as understandable and as effective a tool as we can. because we share your desire that this report be something that members of the public,

members of congress, judges and others can use as an effective reference. and also as an effective tool to press other countries. >> i deeply appreciate that we share that concern i believe we do. our intent and your intent is the same and we are concerned about this. but the definition of unresolved abduction case and i'll read it again to put it on the record, the term unresolved abduction case is a case unresolved for a period that exceeds 12 months after the date on which the completed application for return of the child, of the child is submitted for determination of the judicial or administrative authority as applicable in the country in which the child is located. we have made representation to the japanese government on behalf of these case files, one after the other, after the other, to return the child. i mean -- of course access is usually a part of it. but it is to return the child. because custody we all know is

something that we hope is going to be done at the place of the habitual residence. and i don't think it could be more clear. something secretary jacobs said i'll find it in a second, in 2013, at a hearing that i chaired on this issue, i'd become very concerned. she said i do think that we need for cases not covered by the convention, we need to reach an agreement with japan. you might want to comment whether or not we are close to reaching a bilateral agreement with them and then she said, this is disturbing, i think that threatening countries is often an unsuccessful way to get them to cooperate with us because most of the relationships are complex and involve many issues. then she says, i don't think we are going to sanction japan or threaten them with sanctions because i think that would be detrimental to our bilateral

relationship. i believe passionately in the bilateral relationship with japan. again, was the fix already in in 2013. if we passed the goldman act, you would have a table where it says there are no unresolve abduction cases in japan. again, i think this is theater of the absurd. there are more than 50 of them. some of the parents -- left behind patients are sitting in this room saying zero? how could that be zero? the definition is as air tight as i think lawmakers can write. i don't see how you felt you could not include that. and even in your footnotes you acknowledge the 50 cases, later on in the narrative. so, i think you have done a great disservice to the american

children who have been abducted and their left behind parents with total sincerity. >> and i don't think the fix was in and i don't think there was an intention not to cite japan. as we read through internal discussion, this definition here, it was the feeling that those cases did not meet this definition as written in the law. but it was precisely because of our concern for the 50 cases that we did discuss them at length in the rest of the body of the report and they continue to remain of great concern to us. ambassador susan jacobs will be going there very soon to japan and these cases are going to be a subject of that discussion. and we continue to attempt to -- to resolve and establish this protocols with japan for the resolution of those cases. those 50 cases are at the forefront of our thinking. we understand that among those 50 cases, about 30 of them have

actually filed now -- filed hague cases for access and are working through those cases. >> well, again, these are desperate, loving parents who have been frustrated through nausea with the lack of responsiveness by us, the u.s. government and especially by the japanese government. and let me make a point, when you talk about application. we made it very clear that the term application means the case of a nonconvention country and the formal request by the central authority of the united states, you, to the authority of such a country, and that could be the foreign ministry, requesting the return of an abducted child or the rights of contact with an abducted child. and i presume on each of the outstanding cases, which is now in excess of 50 and some have aged out and gave up, perhaps they are not even counted

anymore, certainly an application to japan and when i was in our tokyo embassy i asked, are we making a representation? what are you doing with the file? you have this file, of course you convey it to the japan in hopefully a persuasive manner. that happened, right? >> we, in the report, as you know, japan conceded to the hague convention and the statistics in the report we counted the applications for return we filed that under the hague. we'll get back to you with a more detailed answer on the pre-hague cases and exactly what was done. but let me say that we have -- this is very much a focus of our office. it is very much a focus of our embassy in tokyo. i have been in meetings with ambassador jacobs and other senior officials have been in meetings discussing with senior officials in tokyo and others

and there was no attempt on our part to evade this issue or somehow push it under the table. it is an issue that is very much a focus and one that we care very deeply about. >> i do look forward to that explanation and we hope if she is -- if she is amenable to it so ask ambassador to come back in july because we are in the 90-day review period and if this could be amended, this report, to get it right, because i believe based on the clear language of the goldman act, japan should be the 23rd nation on the pattern of noncompliance. it is the most -- self-evident of all of the countries and there are countries on here and i'm glad you have brazil and india and other countries. i do note that in your unresolve cases the number on india amazingly, even though there is a national center for missing and exploited children it's 50 and the number is zero there,

too. i'm working with several cases myself, including one of indy phillips, which she has testified twice before my committee and been to the state department, she's doing everything humanly possible and that is an unresolved case now for multiple years and that is listed as zero as well. so we do need -- and maybe you can amend this to get that right. because i do believe it is an egregious flaw. yes, you want to respond, mr. hand. >> i was going to say, sir, again, we worked with the definitions as our experts determined in putting together the report. because the case is not in the report does not mean that we are not working with that parent or that case is not a concern. but this is -- again, this is something that we are very concerned with in our office, again, we want the report to reflect the work our office is doing, we want the report to be an effective tool and also to comply with the terms of legislation. >> again, as i said in my opening, getting the protection act is another issue but it is a

human rights abuse issue. we've argued, just get it right in the report and part two, the sanctions regime, if there are any, there is a generous waiver if the president thinks it is in the best interest of the issue itself, the cause and other interests like national security, where he is not obliged to impose sanctions, but getting the report right is important. as i said before, judges will read this or could read this and say, hmm, zero cases unresolved in japan and send somebody off and that kid or children get abducted by an offending parent. mr. donovan. >> thank you, chairman. either of our panelists, how many children and families are we talking about? >> i'm sorry, sir.

as of june 1st, let me get my glasses -- as of june 1st, our office has a total of 919 out going -- meaning children taken from the united states abduction and access cases. the cases may involve more than one child so the total is about 1285 children. as chairman smith said and others have noted, we rely largely on cases that are reported to us. so there are cases that -- that are out there that are not reported to the central authority that may not be in this figure. >> does each family have a liason at state that informs them of the progress of their case? do they have to inquire at a general number and try to find somebody to help them or do we have somebody that is working with each particular family? >> the office of children's issues is divided up by region. and each region has country officers. if your familiar with how

regional bureaus work, where there is a country desk officer, we have a similar setup in the office of children's issues so we have country officer who is are experts and work with families in particular countries and particular regions. and so we have people who work with families that involve brazil or china or russia or japan or other countries. >> and as the chairman points out, one country is not complying and are there countries that could be models for others? >> there are countries -- there are countries that we have a very good working relationship with. it is -- we are engaged in, like other aspects of our relationships with other countries, some countries we might have a good working relationship with the central authority but huge problems with

judicial authorities or law enforcement authorities not complying or other elements of that government. in other cases, there is also issues with just volume. a country we work, very closely with, mexico, which because of the proximity to the united states, we have far more children being abducted to and from mexico to the united states than any other country. that relationship is far different than a relationship with a country where there is maybe one or two abductions but it varied. some countries everything works well, some countries we're struggling. some countries we're trying to work with elements within that government to bring along other elements of judiciary or law enforcement to achieve returns of children. >> and my final question, is there some countries that don't recognize the judicial determination of parental rights in our country and don't

recognize in their country as a reason to assist in getting this parent back with their child? >> the department of state, we are big advocates of the hague convention because that is a mechanism whereby countries can -- simplifying but recognize judicial decisions made in other countries to get children back to their habitual residence and there are countries where the left behind parent does have to file a custody application, a court case in that country. so it really -- legal systems as you know vary very much from country to country. >> thank you very much. and before our next panel comes up, i apologize, i have to leave to go somewhere else. so if i leave, please don't be offended. thank you very much. >> let me ask you a couple of questions. when you raised this with the japanese government, can you

tell us how senior that is, who they are? >> we've raised it with senior members of the foreign ministry. we are actively discussing with our embassy in tokyo sort of other ways to raise this issue. i -- the cases -- the instances -- the most recent cases or instances i'm most familiar with are senior members of the japanese foreign ministry. >> let me -- but no names? maybe you can get -- do you have an idea who your people are? if a country has a case that goes on six weeks but in compliance with the treaty do you consider that a case resolved? >> i'm sorry, could you repeat the question, mr. chairman? >> pardon me. if a country has allowed a case

to go on for six weeks, which is what the hague prescribes, but otherwise complying with the requirements of the treaty, do you consider that case resolved? >> we have -- one of the things that we are working with is our definition of resolved and unresolved cases and we have cases that kind of fall into the middle. we have the annual report defined for the der in addition of the law and at the same time our office may close a case for other administrative reasons, for example, rejected by the foreign central authority. that case would still be unresolved in the annual report. we do have cases that -- they have not been resolved, they have not come to a conclusion but they don't meet the definition of unresolved, meaning they have within with the foreign judicial authority for more than 12 months. this is another area in which we look forward to working with you

and others to make the report more clear and more useful. >> can you tell us how many -- how many abduction cases oci has open inclusive of all years. how many open cases do you have? >> yes, sir. the figure i have is currently this is as of june 1st. i apologize i don't have as of june 11th the office has a total of t 19 outgoing abduction and access case that is involve 1285 children. as sir, you have said and we have said before, there are cases not reported to us but that is our open case load as of june 1st. >> in talking to india, i asked secretary kerry when he testified earlier this year about whether or not he raised the case with mody and whether

or not president obama raised the child parental abduction and he said we raise all international parental child abduction cases in appropriate meetings which is now the standard and it is included in e-mails that go back and forth from your office. but just to drill down on that, again, i have individual cases in my own state and yet -- and that have gone on for years and yet the unresolved case load for india like japan is zero. that is like a -- a body blow to long, suffering, left behind in this case -- bendy was a mother who had her kids taken away from her and she tried everything and is counting on the u.s. government to be her you know the one entity to make this come to fruition to get her children back. >> sir, i very much -- i understand the concern. and again, for this report, we used the definitions that were

in the legislation. that doesn't mean we don't have open cases in the office of children's issues and the case you cited and others are very much a concern of our office. we are pressing the indian government and other governments to resolve them. and again, one of our -- one of the things that we look forward to working with you, with others, is how to make this report a better reflection of what we're doing and the numbers of people and so on that we're working with. >> we're looking forward to doing that. again, and i read it and i won't read it again but the one resolved definition is as clear-cut as i could possibly imagine it. we worked hard to make sure there was clarity, predictability, nobody would be confused, no ambiguity, it means unresolved for a period of 12 months after a date on which a

completed application for the return for a child is submitted for return in judicial or administrative authority. and again we're tendering these requested for the another ministry and whoever else in japan. and the same goes for india and yet we have zeros there. so please, i ask, respectfully, if you could reopen this issue with regards to the report immediately and resolve that. because it deals a real blow, i think, to the accuracy of the report. let's just say it exactly the way it is and work out what our response ought to be that is prudent and hopefully toast efficacious, which is to get the children to the left behind parent. if you could consider that. >> we'll take that back, sir. >> we will take that back. as henry said we do look forward to talking in greater detail, a more detailed briefing

about exactly where the numbers came from and what definitions we're using. our goal here was to try to comply with what was required in the report and since this was a new way of looking at the information and new definitions, we weren't sure when we started down this road exactly what we would end up with and where that would take us and it was our goal to have a report that is responsive to the interest and concerns of everybody involved. and if i might say one thing about the act, the act is much more than just about the report. and we believe that the measures that are in here involving prevention will have a significant impact on this problem and so we're grateful for those measures and we look forward to developing those. >> i appreciate that. and i know that you report that you had a prevention interagency meeting in october. that is from title three of course of the law. have you had any since? >> yes. we did. we had another one. and i know that d.o.d. was also involved in that one and that was in april, i believe.

and at those meetings, what is really evident is that that sort of an interagency meeting and interagency task force does surface ways to remove barriers to communications within the u.s. government which i think will provide benefit for this and we'll see good results from. >> that and again, if you could shed -- and this is my final question, any insight as to ambassador jacobs comments on may 9th, 2013, when she said we do need to reach an agreement with japan, a bilateral agreement or moou which i've been arguing for for about seven years, are we close to it? is there an active discussion going on with our friends in japan? >> there is an active discussion. this is something that, as director of the office, i've spent a fair amount of time discussing both with our embassy in tokyo and others. it is something that we are extremely anxious to achieve and

anxious to see some proguess and we will keep you updated, sir. >> okay. and i would note that i do believe that one part of the prevention scheme and we've learned this from the trafficking report is just getting the report accurate. and japan needs to be gotten accurate. so i want to thank you. and i have some additional questions that i would like to submit for the record and i appreciate you coming. and please get back to us, ambassador jacobs, if she might be available in july before the 90 day period has elapsed. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> i would like to now introduce our second panel. beginning with ravindra parmar, who is a left behind father of a young man who was abducted in india in march of 2012, by his

mother, when ray yash, the son, was 3 years old. he is a cpa and works for a big four accounting firm and immigrated in 1994 and lived in the u.s. for almost 21 years. he and his wife are both naturalized u.s. citizens and ravash was born in new jersey where the family lived together from 2004 to 2012. and then that is when dimple took rayash on what was supposed to be a five-week vacation to india. they've been fighting for the son's return for three years and co-founded the bring our kids home which advocates for all returned american children abducted to india. we'll then hear from edeanna

barbirou, who were abducted by their father to the republic of tunisia in november of 2011. she has successfully returned home to the u.s. with her daughter zanab and continued to seek the return of her now abducted son from tunisia. following her children's abduction she initiated an organization to bring awareness to her family's case. today to return rush home, she has a mission to educate the public and public servants about the international child abduction issue and develop abduction prevention strategies. rush advances this mission through the membership with the i stand parent network, a coalition of parents organizations and stakeholders united to prevent and remedy parental child abduction. we'll then hear from dr. chris fer sa-- christopher savoie

a member of the american bar association of laws of big data and licensed attorney and data scientist senior manager of enterprise architect at nissan where he oversees the big data analytics. he started his technology career in japan where he founded at mark, the first internet founding firms and where he invented and commercialized understanding technology apple siri and founded gni networks in japan, a publicly traded pharmaceutical company that utilizes his inventions for novo pharmaceuticals. he will speak about his child being abducted in just a moment. and then we'll hear from mr. preston findlay, the legal counsel for the missing children

for missing and exploited children. in his role he provides legal technical assistance for attorneys and others for international and domestic child abductions including children taken by a parent or family member. he edited and co-authored the guide for attorneys handling cases under the hague child abduction convention as well as an investigation in program management guide for law enforcement agencies responding to cases of missing and abducted children. mr. findlay is a former prosecutor and attorney practicing law in texas and virginia. so i'd like to now introduce miss palmer. dr. savoie is going to go first sorry. >> sorry about that.

thank you, mr. chairman, for the opportunity to speak with today about the ongoing obstacles that parents face to be reunited with their kidnapped children. thank you for this honor. my name is christopher savoie. kidnapping of our children. my nightmare began in august of 2009 when my ex-wife told me she wanted to take the kids back-to-school shopping. little did i know, on that day, in a few short hours, my children would be on an airplane in the air on the way to japan in their own haven for parental child abduction. it would be slightly less

painful perhaps if my ex-wife facilitated phone calls between me and my children. my phone calls are ignored, my packages are refused and my letters are sent back to me. the state department informed me they're working on my case. we had meetings, phone calls and and even more meetings, town hall meetings in which i met scores of parents in the same situation. i was assured the state department was, quote, raising the issue of my cases and other cases in which children were stolen to japan in violation of law. just briefly, i'd like to share with you the research, nic nic who we'll hear from later is the experience is extremely damage to get child. the office of juvenile preference says parental abduction profoundly affects the

abducted children and has long lasting consequences. the fbi says abduction is born of the parent's selfish desire. it's child abuse and the effects are deep and long lasting. but in my first meeting with the state department official, do you know what she said? michelle bong currently the acting secretary for council affairs said to me, quote, at least their with their mommy. at least they're with their mommy. you would think that somebody in such a high-level position would have known about the studies or the justice department or the fbi's or the ada's or perhaps most glaringly, that the u.s. congress in passing the international parental kidnapping crimes act stated that parental child abduction is in fact a felony crime.

so this is my first introduction into the world of oci. flabbergasted by the story of demeaning parents on the substance of their alleged efforts to bring our children home as well as the state department's habit of fudging the numbers to protect the foreign country's reputation in eyes of congress. i was act communicating with the osi in the beginning in 2009, 20102011. after a mile it became more noticeable that the staff lacked any outrage whatsoever in japan's complicity in this human rights issue. i asked myself whose side are they really on, anyway? their language always seemed slippery to me, finally in 2011 when my children had been abducted for over a year and a half i asked my caseworker has the state department ever formally demanded the return of my children. on march 9th, she responded by

e-mail and i quote, the state department has not formally demanded the return of any abducted children. let me say that again, the state department has not formally demanded the return of any abducted children. if they're not demanding the abducted children what are they doing keeping abducted children on their agenda? i never received a statement as to why the state department has not demanded the abduct the children. here i am, a few years older and a fuel years wiser and i'm holding a copy with the golden act subject of this hearing and the report is full numbers, 42 pages of numbers, but these are not just ordinary numbers, mr. chairman. eve of these numbers represents one or more actual american citizen children who have been kidnapped away from an american parent. each one of these numbers is a real significant human rights tragedy that is causing very real terrorism. and it's underrepresented the

problem again, to protect the reputation of our allies in the eyes of congress, rather than being forth right. the truth is, when it comes to japan in particular and its ability to abide by the hague treaty we have a major problem. at a recent hearing in front of the japanese dias, the parliament, they expressed the goldman act, i mentioned you, mr. chairman. and i quote, because japan only has sole parental rights not shared parental rights like most other countries. please allow me to explain this so you and others understand what is going on here, and why without a change in japanese law japan can never be in compliance with the letter or the spirit of the hague convention. you see in japan, every divorce results in the total logs of all parental rights for one of the

parents. that's right. under japanese law, after a divorce, even a completely am applicable divorce, the parents or a court must decide which parent will maintain parental rights. not custody. parental rights. the result of this rule is that one parent must by law have his or her parental rights terminated becoming legally, a total stranger, a nonparent to the child. the nonparent may not have any decision making over the child anymore. never mind visitation, decisions over medical care. access to a child in the hospital. or access to school records. none of that. this is also why the state department and the japanese government, both of which would like to maintain smooth bilateral relations have had to control the numbers in this

report and distort the truth in order to hide this awful fact about japanese law and cultural values. by definition, there is only one parent after a divorce in japan as far as hague mandated access and visitation is concerned, japan has never developed any enforcement mechanisms, because in its own country they would never create a system to enforce visitation with someone who is legally a stranger. so when the state department suggests that japan is magically compliant with the hague convention, according to their recent report, we must ask them, how is it possible when the japanese government itself admits in open parliamentary session that divorced parents have no parental rights at all? how can japan be compliant with this law without any possible parental rights or visitation rights or visitation enforcement? not only for these american parents but for their own japanese citizen parents following a divorce? the answer is simple, japan cannot be compliant, legally, culturally or practically. but yet, the state department misrepresents the numbers in order to claim that japan is compliant when they know that this is not true. in fact, last week in order to shine a spotlight on the underlying issue on sole parental rights, my client u.s.

navy captain paul tolland filed a lawsuit challenges the basis of this reality. he asked for what u.s. courts would consider a natural human right. that the sole surviving parent after a divorce and death of a spouse be granted physical custody of his child. right now, the child is with a grandparent who refuses to let him have any and all access to his daughter. the premise of the lawsuit that a biological parent has a fundamental right to his or own child has made national headlines in japan. why? as several japanese experts state in the japanese press and i quote, this case brings to light the stark cultural defenses between japanese and u.s. culture and laws concerning fundamental parental rights.

again, japan simply does not recognize that parents like me, like paul tolland, like so many others have any right what is so far to parent our children. now, in addition to the abduction cases that are cases the state department refuses to you'll mystically as access cases. they're cases like mine which because our kids were abducted before the hague convention, japan james it be forced to return them under the hague treaty. even in this cases, the hague convention requires that the authority remove all obstacles to visitation with our children. all obstacles. in an e-mail dated june 3rd, 2015, my caseworker told my attorney that the jca claims it is not their responsibility to facilitate a visitation agreement about my access to my children. so my case, thanks to the state department's unwillingness or unable to advocate on my behalf remains in a catch-22. the only thing responsible for facilitating access and removing all obstacles to hague-mandated access is the only one through which my ex-wife will communicate and is claiming that it is not responsible for hague mandated access. and in fact, on a recorded interview with australia broadcasting corporation, the director of the hague convention division, the japanese ministry of foreign affairs, admits,

verbatim, and i quote, that japan cannot enforce any sort of access. in fact, the state department, in the report, is carved out what appears to be a novel exception to the goldman act. not just cases awaiting submission. but already submitted cases are excluded for the purposes of compliance. in other words, once a case is submitted to a court in japan and forced into mediation or litigation the state department has taken the position that the japanese authority is off the hook. that these cases simply because the courts and not the jca itself are responsible for gaining timely access to the children. once the case is submitted the state department and jca claim they can wash their hands of all responsibility to the children in a timely manner.