2002-2003 Compliance Report

2002-2003 Report on Compliance with the Hague Abduction Convention

INTRODUCTION:

Parental child abduction is a tragedy. When a child is abducted across international borders, the difficulties are compounded for everyone involved. The Department of State considers international parental child abduction, as well as the welfare and protection of U.S. citizen children taken overseas, to be important, serious matters. We place the highest priority on the welfare of children who have been victimized by international abductions.

For some parents, an important tool in seeking the return of their child is the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The United States was a major force in preparing and negotiating the Hague Convention, which was finalized in 1980, and incorporated into U.S. law and brought into force for the United States on July 1, 1988. Today, the Convention is in force between the United States and 51 other countries. The Convention applies to wrongful removals or retentions that occurred on or after the date the treaty came into force between those two countries. The dates vary for each country and more countries are considering signing on to the Convention all the time. The U.S. has actively encouraged countries to sign the Convention, recognizing its potential effectiveness not just in resolving cases of international parental child abduction, but in deterring future abductions.

As originally mandated by Section 2803 of Public Law 105-277, (Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998), as amended by Section 202 of Public Law 106-113 (The Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001), the Department of State submits the following report on compliance by signatory countries with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (referred to throughout this Report as "the Convention"), done at The Hague on October 25, 1980. Previous such reports were completed in April 1999, September 2000, and April 2001. (An informal version of the report was prepared in April 2002, despite the lack of implementing legislation. This report incorporates that version and updates the information regarding cases remaining outstanding for more than 18 months. Specific cases covered in the present report remained unresolved as of September 30, 2002.

This report reviews the status of implementation of the Convention by countries recognized by the United States (currently 51) as parties to the Convention. It specifically cites those countries where implementation of the Convention has proven problematic, for reasons specific to each country and to varying degrees. It also discusses unresolved applications filed through the U.S. Central Authority for the return of children to the United States. Under the Convention, return and access applications may also be filed either directly with the Central Authority of the state where the child is located or with a foreign court with jurisdiction to hear a return request. The left-behind parent may pursue return without involving the U.S. Central Authority. In these circumstances, the U.S. Central Authority may never know about such a request and its disposition. Thus this report cannot give a complete picture of the outcome of all Hague applications for the return of children to the United States.

The U.S. Central Authority considers a Hague application to be “filed” on the date on which the application is forwarded by the U.S. Central Authority to the appropriate Foreign Central Authority, rather than the date of the initial receipt of the application by the U.S. Central Authority. This is because in many cases supplementary materials must be obtained from the applicants before the application is considered complete and can be forwarded. Where this occurs, every effort is made by the U.S. Central Authority to obtain the needed information expeditiously.

The U.S. Central Authority may open a Hague case based on a parent expressing concern about his/her child abroad, without requiring that a Hague application be filed or complete. The U.S. Central Authority may forward to other Central Authorities incomplete applications lacking critical supporting documents and inform parents that, while other Central Authorities are often unable to process the case without complete documentation, they may be able to make limited preliminary inquiries while parents are gathering the required documents. Thus, a Hague case may be “open” even if no Hague application has been “filed.” This further complicates reporting efforts on compliance, since an opened case may be resolved without an application ever being filed. The Department is naturally pleased if a case can be resolved in its earliest stages, even before an actual application need be filed.

As has been the practice in previous reports, the Department is reporting as “resolved” cases that are determined by the U.S. Central Authority to be “closed” as Hague cases or “inactive.” This is a technical designation, and does not necessarily mean an end to the Department’s involvement in seeking a resolution. Like other signatory countries, the U.S. Central Authority closes or inactivates Hague cases for a variety of reasons. These include: return of child; parental reconciliation; withdrawal of request for assistance; inability to contact the requesting parent after numerous attempts over a two-year period; exhaustion of all judicial remedies pursuant to the Convention; or access rights granted and enforced. In all such cases, regardless of the outcome, no further proceedings pursuant to the Convention are anticipated. Considering these cases “resolved” and closing them as Convention cases is consistent with the practice of other Convention signatories. More specifically, we will close a Hague case if the circumstances definitively require it, such as the return of a child or upon the specific request of the parent. We will “inactivate” a case when, in the absence of such definitive circumstances, the facts of the case do not allow, or the parent does not permit, a further reasonable pursuit of aspects of the case. Two years after inactivation, and in the absence of further relevant initiatives by the left-behind parent, the case will be closed.

The exhaustion of all judicial remedies pursuant to the Convention may result in a case that is “closed” under the terms of the Convention, but that has been resolved in a way that is unsatisfactory to the U.S. and the left-behind parent. The resolution of the case may or may not have been consistent with the Convention’s requirements, independent of whether the left-behind parent is satisfied. Even when the Hague return aspects of a case have been closed, however, the U.S. Central Authority stands ready to provide assistance to the left-behind parent by facilitating access (which may be sought under or independently of the Convention), reporting on the welfare of the child, or assisting the parent to achieve a more satisfactory solution. When a foreign court decision on the Hague aspects of a case indicates a lack of understanding or consideration of the Convention’s provisions, the U.S. Department of State may register its concern and dissatisfaction with the decision through the Foreign Central Authority or diplomatic channels. The Secretary of State, other senior Department officials and U.S. Ambassadors have raised international parental child abduction issues and specific cases with foreign government officials.

Annexed to this report is a list by country of the cases unresolved for more than 18 months as of September 30, 2002. Information that might identify a case to the abducting parent, or to others, has been removed to protect the privacy of the child and the applicant parent. Separately, in various places in the text of this report, certain illustrative cases are used to more fully address questions of compliance with the Convention.

This report identifies specific countries and cases in which parties to the Convention have not met its goals or in which the Convention has not operated to achieve a satisfactory result for left-behind parents in the United States. The U.S. Department of State has continued to take steps to promote better information sharing and more consistent practices among signatory countries. As noted in our 2001 report, at the March 2001 quadrennial Special Commission meeting to study the operation of the Convention (the Special Commission), the U.S. delegation was a key participant in six days of intensive review and discussion of practices under the Convention. In addition, the U.S. delegation made full use of the opportunities presented by the Special Commission to address with every party state present systemic problems and difficult cases.

In addition to the applications for the return of children, this report also discusses applications for access to children. While the Convention does not treat questions of parental access in depth and is less specific about terms of access than terms of return, the Department of State recognizes the importance of children having meaningful access to both parents. The Department has pursued access issues in every appropriate forum, including at the March 2001 Special Commission.

The reporting period is considered as the period from April 30, 2001 until September 30, 2002. The information provided is that available to the U.S. Central Authority within these dates. In some instances, updates are provided to include important developments subsequent to September 30, 2002.

RESPONSE TO SECTION 2803 (a):

Section 2803(a)(1) requests “the number of applications for the return of children submitted by applicants in the United States to the Central Authority for the United States that remain unresolved more than 18 months after the date of filing.”

Taking into account the above clarifications, as of September 30, 2002, there were 48 applications that remained unresolved 18 months after the date of filing with the relevant foreign Central Authority.

Section 2803 (a)(2) requests “a list of the countries to which children in unresolved applications described in paragraph (1) are alleged to have been abducted, are being wrongfully retained in violation of the United States court orders, or which have failed to comply with any of their obligations under such Convention with respect to applications for the return of children, access to children, or both, submitted by applicants in the United States.”

The 48 applications identified above that remain unresolved 18 months after the date of filing, as of September 30, 2002, involve fifteen countries: Australia, Belgium, Colombia, Ecuador, Germany, Honduras, Ireland, Israel, Mauritius, Mexico, Panama, Poland, South Africa, Spain and Zimbabwe. The extent to which these countries and others appear to present additional, systemic issues of compliance under the Convention is discussed further in Sections (a)(3), (a)(4) and (a)(6), below.

In considering the question of compliance and court orders, it should be noted that most Hague cases are premised on a parent’s shared custody rights by operation of law, typically shared custody under state law by virtue of being husband and wife. A court order is not a requirement for filing a Hague application. Moreover, while the existence of rights of custody in the country of habitual residence at the time of an abduction is a requirement for filing under the Convention, the Convention itself does not address the question of enforcement of such custody rights in other countries. The Convention requires that foreign countries recognize U.S. custody rights to the extent that such rights provide the basis for application and the rationale for return. Adjudication of cases under the Convention by foreign courts should only take into consideration whether the child was wrongfully removed from the country of habitual residence or wrongfully retained abroad.

Section 2803 (a)(3) requests “a list of countries that have demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance with the obligations of the Convention with respect to the applications for the return of children, access to children, or both, submitted by applicants in the United States to the Central Authority of the United States.”

There are many factors involved in implementing the provisions of the Convention, not least because the executive, legislative and judicial branches of each party country have important and varying roles. A country may thus perform well in some areas and poorly in others. The Department of State, building on recommendations of an inter-agency working group on international parental child abduction, has identified the elements involved in implementing the provisions of the Convention and has used these as factors for evaluating country performance. The elements are: the existence and effectiveness of implementing legislation; Central Authority performance; judicial performance; and enforcement of orders. “Implementing legislation” can be evaluated as to whether, after ratification of the Convention, it has the force of law enabling the executive and judicial branches to carry out their Convention responsibilities. “Central Authority performance” involves the speed of processing applications; procedures for assisting left-behind parents in obtaining knowledgeable, affordable legal assistance; judicial education or resource programs; responsiveness to the U.S. Central Authority and left-behind parent inquiries; and success in promptly locating abducted children. “Judicial performance” comprises the timeliness of first hearing and subsequent appeals and whether courts apply the Convention and its articles appropriately. “Enforcement of orders” involves the prompt enforcement of civil court orders under the Convention by civil or police authorities and the existence and effectiveness of sanctions compelling compliance with orders. Specific instances of failure to enforce orders are addressed in section (a)(6) below.

This report identifies those countries that the Department of State has found to have demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance or that, despite a small number of cases, have such systemic problems that the Department believes a larger volume of cases would demonstrate continued noncompliance constituting a pattern. In addition, the Department recognizes that countries may demonstrate varying levels of commitment to and effort in meeting their obligations under the Convention. The Department considers that countries listed as noncompliant are not taking effective steps to address deficiencies.

As discussed further below, the Department of State considers Austria, Honduras, Mauritius, Mexico and Panama to be noncompliant using this standard, and Switzerland to be not fully compliant. The Department of State has also identified several countries of concern that have inadequately addressed some aspects of their obligations under the Hague Convention. These countries are The Bahamas, Colombia, Germany, Poland, and Spain.

A word about Sweden: Sweden was listed in our first compliance report in 1999 as a non-compliant country. In the 2001 report, we placed Sweden in the category of countries of concern with regard to implementation of the Convention. The last report reflected, in our view, the extent to which Sweden had been responsive to the concerns raised in the initial report. Sweden’s implementation of the Convention over the last year, including the court-ordered and enforced return of a child to the United States, indicated continued progress toward full compliance with the Convention. We therefore have not listed Sweden in any of the categories of non-compliance in this report. While we hope this progress indicates a firm commitment to the Convention’s principles, we will monitor closely Sweden’s actions in each new case, and will continue to seek resolution of long-standing cases of concern.

Noncompliant Countries

AUSTRIA

Austria has been identified as noncompliant in all the Department’s previous Compliance Reports based on one particularly significant case. This case exemplifies the delays in case processing that the Department believes reflect a lack of understanding by the Austrian judiciary of the Convention and indifference to the importance of expeditiously handling cases. This suggested the need for the Austrian Central Authority to better meet its Convention obligation under Article 7 to provide information about the Convention to the judiciary. In addition, Hague court orders in the case noted above were neither enforced adequately, nor were sanctions applied against the abducting parent who defied court orders.

The Department’s concerns about Austrian compliance continue. While we have received assurances that Austria’s Central Authority has undertaken measures to educate the judiciary, we have not seen any examples of such educational efforts. As noted in last year’s report, the Ministry of Justice was working on legislation that would reorganize court responsibilities for international child abduction cases. The aim of this reorganization would be to allow judges in fewer courts to gain more experience in child abduction cases. The concentration of jurisdiction in a limited number of courts would be part of a broader reform of the "Ausserstreitverfahren" which covers special legal proceedings used in family law matters and certain other civil law matters. We are encouraged by this initiative and see it as a potential positive first step toward more effective implementation of the Convention in Austria. The Ministry advised the Department that this proposed legislation, which would restrict Hague hearings to 16 district courts instead of the current 200 available district courts, would be submitted to Parliament by the middle of 2002. As of September 2002, the draft bill was still under review and had not reached Parliament. The Austrian government was dissolved and future submission of the bill to the Cabinet/Council of Ministers and to Parliament will require approval of the Minister of Justice after a new government is formed.

The Department clearly differs with the Austrian Government on interpretation of Article 13 of the Convention, which addresses protection of the abducted child. The particular case noted above, which has been discussed in previous reports, suggests that the previously cited problems remain systemic. In this case, Austrian courts at every level up to the Supreme Court ordered the return of the child to the United States. The taking parent appealed the enforcement of the return order. The courts then determined that the Austrian return order should not be enforced because the delays in the case had caused the child to become settled in Austria and return would cause psychological harm. After the Austrian court denied the child’s return to the United States, the left-behind parent sought access rights under the Convention. The courts finally granted very limited access in Austria. Recent court decisions in the case, relying on the opinion of one child psychologist who has been consulted by the court throughout the case, continue to maintain strict supervision of any visits and prohibit consideration of any visit by the child to the United States.

The Department of State notes that Austria’s Minister of Justice and Minister of Foreign Affairs attempted to assist the parties in this case to seek a resolution that would allow both parents to participate more fully in the life of their child. This attempt at mediation did not succeed because it depended on the volition of the abducting parent. In May 2001 Secretary Powell raised this case with the Austrian Foreign Minister.

Secretary Powell met with Rep. Chabot (R-OH) on June 27, 2002, to discuss this case. The Secretary then followed up with a telephone call to the Austrian Foreign Minister on June 28. On July 1, 2002, the U.S. Ambassador to Austria met with the Austrian Minister of Justice. At the conclusion of this meeting, the Minister said he was committed to contacting the taking parent to seek conditions or guarantees that might possibly lead to a compromise for unsupervised visitation. Unfortunately, the abducting parent rebuffed the Minister's efforts. The taking parent's attorney rejected any and all offers and guarantees from the left-behind parent and criticized both the U.S. and Austrian governments for their intervention in the matter. The Justice Minister stated that he was not in a position to assist further in the matter. The Department appreciates the willingness of Austrian Government officials to address the issue, but believes a satisfactory resolution still requires concrete legislative action. (Note: Although outside the reporting dates for this report, Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Maura Harty raised this case with the Austrian Ambassador to Washington on January 14, 2003 to reiterate the Department’s concerns, and intends to travel to Austria to pursue the matter further in Spring 2003.)

The case referred to above is not listed in Attachment “A” as one of the cases unresolved after 18 months. The Department believes such a listing would be misleading because, while we do not agree with the court decisions, the case has been resolved in the sense that the judiciary has completed its action. The Department continues to encourage the Austrian government to draw lessons from the experience gained in this case to both make structural changes in the Convention implementation process and to address the inequities in the case in question.

HONDURAS

Honduras was cited as non-compliant in previous compliance reports. Since last year’s report (April 2001), the Honduran Ministry of Foreign Affairs has notified the Embassy by letter on July 31, 2001, that the Government of Honduras agrees that the Convention is indeed in effect between Honduras and the United States and that the Honduran Children and Family Institute (IHNFA) has been designated as the Honduran Central Authority.

Consular officers met with representatives of IHNFA in October 2001, and presented them with copies of two outstanding Hague applications. The applications had previously been rejected by the Honduran authorities on the grounds that the June 1994 Honduran accession to the Convention had not been ratified.

One application was submitted in September 1994 and the other in April 1998. The older case was resolved in September 2002, not through the Hague, but through the extradition of the taking grandparent to the state of Texas. For the extradition, the FBI had the cooperation of Honduran law enforcement authorities who turned the child over to Texas Social Services personnel accompanying FBI officers handling the case. IHNFA was not involved with the transfer. In the 1998 case, the IHNFA has not addressed the question of the return of the child but has, at the request of the Embassy, made a visit to the child, and a report on the child's well-being has been provided to the left-behind parent.

IHNFA officials were unfamiliar with procedures under the Convention. The removal of Honduras from the list of non-compliant countries awaits concrete actions to resolve in a manner consistent with its Convention obligations, the 1998 case and future cases that might occur.

MAURITIUS

In previous reports, Mauritius was cited as a non-compliant country because it had not taken the necessary steps to properly implement the Convention. Mauritius became a party to the Convention in 1993, but only passed implementing legislation in July 2000. The U.S. Central Authority submitted two cases (one in June 1998 and the second in February 1999) to the Mauritian Central Authority after Mauritius became party to the Convention, but before implementing legislation was passed in 2000. By September 2002, neither case had yet had a hearing under the Convention. The United States believes the accession of Mauritius to the Convention obligated it to process cases that arose after the accession.

The Office of Children'' Issues was informed in June 2002 that the Mauritian government was requesting additional forms of documentation from both left-behind parents. The requested documents were forwarded and in November 2002, the U.S. Embassy in Port Louis informed the Office of Children's Issues that the Ministry of Women's and Children's Issues (the Mauritian Central Authority or "CA") had initiated action on both pending cases. The CA has requested a hearing with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court announced that on January 15, 2003, it will set trial dates for the two long-standing cases. The Department of State and the Embassy in Mauritius are following these cases closely and communicating with the Mauritian government regarding next steps. The removal of Mauritius from the category of non-compliant countries will require concrete action to resolve these and any future cases in a manner consistent with Mauritius'' Convention obligations.

MEXICO

Mexico remains the destination country of the greatest number of children parentally abducted from the United States. In the 2000 and 2001 reports Mexico was listed as “not fully compliant” due to its serious efforts to better meet its Convention responsibilities. Mexico’s performance since the 2001 report, however, has deteriorated significantly, to the point that Mexico is now non-compliant.

Systemic problems continue to delay resolution of cases. These problems include: the Mexican Central Authority’s lack of adequate resources, the lack of implementing legislation integrating the Convention into the Mexican legal system, and an apparent lack of understanding of the Convention among the judiciary.

The lack of resources including personnel resulted in difficulties in communication between the Office of Children’s Issues in the Bureau of Consular Affairs, which acts as the United States Central Authority (USCA), and the Mexican Central Authority (MCA). Communication began to improve in May 2002 when monthly meetings to discuss cases began between the MCA and the consular section at the United States Embassy in Mexico.

Lack of resources may have contributed to the increase in the number of cases still active more than 18 months after filing with the MCA. In the present report there are 29 Mexican cases in this category compared with 18 in the 2001 Report.

The lack of implementing legislation integrating the Convention into the Mexican legal system remains a problem. The amparo (a special appeal claiming a violation of constitutional rights) has been used by taking parents to block Hague proceedings indefinitely. Six cases still active 18 months after filing had one or more amparos and 3 of those cases currently have amparos pending. One of the four cases resolved through the Convention process since the 2001 Report was published resulted in the denial of a return by the Mexican Supreme Court because six years had passed while the taking parent filed successive amparos after the original judge ordered the children returned.

In addition, the Mexican court’s ability to reconsider the facts at any stage of the proceeding is a major area of concern and highlights the effect the lack of implementing legislation integrating the Convention into the Mexican legal system has had on the Convention’s effectiveness. In one long-standing case, the taking parent is raising again, now that the case has been returned to the trial court after appeal, defenses already adjudicated and rejected in the original trial proceeding.

Another systemic problem is the apparent lack of understanding of the Convention’s purpose and intent by many judges. The Convention was not designed to address underlying custody issues. Those were meant to be dealt with by the courts in the country of the child's habitual residence, after the child has been returned. However, as noted above, the lack of implementing legislation has allowed judges to apply Mexican procedural and custody law in Hague cases to deny return when the only issues the court is supposed to examine are: (a) whether the child was "habitually resident" in another Hague state prior to the abduction or illegal retention; (b) whether the left-behind parent had some form of custodial rights at the time; and (c) whether those rights were being exercised.

The USCA has raised these issues with the MCA and the Embassy of Mexico in on-going meetings and conversations since the 2001 Report. The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs raised the issue of implementation of the Convention in a letter to the Mexican Ambassador in March 2002. In response, the MCA acknowledged the need to improve its implementation of the Convention but other than improved communication no significant change has occurred. The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs raised our concerns about the implementation of the Convention in Mexico at the Binational Commission meetings in November 2002. The Binational Working Group agreed to work together to ensure passage of implementing legislation and to promote judicial training aimed at improving compliance with the Convention. A group of Mexican judges and Central Authority officials visited Washington in December 2002 for a U.S. Government-arranged program focused on familiarization with Hague implementation in the U.S.

PANAMA

The Convention entered into force between the United States and Panama in 1994. Since then, nine Hague applications have been filed by left-behind parents in the United States to request their children's return from Panama. As of September 30, 2002, in only one case was a child returned pursuant to orders under the Convention. Of the rest, four were made inactive because of no contact from the left-behind parent; three saw voluntary returns; and one remained active and unresolved (See Attachment A) until the children returned to the U.S. in November 2002.

The main reason for this situation was the lack of legislation making the Convention part of domestic law in Panama. Without the legislation, the Panamanian code of family justice took precedence, and decisions of the Superior Minor's Court could not be appealed to a higher court. The Foreign Ministry, which serves as the Central Authority, could not intervene in the lower court’s decisions.

In November 2001, Panama passed implementing legislation for the Convention. The Department acknowledges the importance of this step and hopes that it will lead to full implementation of Panama’s Convention responsibilities. Throughout 2002, U.S. Embassy officials continued to meet with high-level officials of the Panamanian Foreign Ministry and the Panamanian judicial branch to press for progress in Convention implementation and speedy resolution of cases. Embassy officials underlined that Panama's performance in carrying out its Convention obligations could affect progress on negotiating other bilateral or international treaties in which Panama has an interest. In May 2002, Panama designated a special judge to hear the one outstanding case and future Hague cases. The outstanding case was particularly egregious and the judge was instructed to decide it in accordance with the Convention. On September 11, 2002, the judge ordered the return of the children to the U.S. in the outstanding case. The children had not yet been returned to the U.S. by the reporting period's end, but were returned to the U.S. in late 2002.

The removal of Panama from the category of non-compliant countries will require further evidence of Panama's commitment to resolve cases in a manner consistent with Panama's Convention responsibilities.

Countries that are Not Fully Compliant

SWITZERLAND

Switzerland was listed in the 2001 Compliance report as a country of concern. Actions taken during the last year by the Swiss judiciary have been contrary to the Convention. These actions have made their own argument for placing Switzerland in the category of countries that are not fully compliant with the Convention.

Switzerland has a federal system of government with powerful cantons. Authorities at the federal level, including the Swiss Central Authority, are cooperative and responsive, but there are problems with the cantonal-level governments, courts and child welfare agencies, which have favored the Swiss parent in some parental abduction cases. The federal level will not intervene in an ongoing cantonal legal process supposedly based on new evidence, even if federal courts have already definitively ordered the return of a child. In November 2000, the Swiss Central Authority oversaw the establishment of Coordination Offices in each canton to improve federal-cantonal communication on international parental child abduction matters. The Coordination Offices have not to our knowledge been involved in any cases concerning U.S. citizens abducted to Switzerland. We are therefore unable to assess their effectiveness in improving the implementation of the Convention in Switzerland.

In one case, a Swiss federal court ordered the return of a child to the left-behind parent in the United States, and the cantonal court of original jurisdiction rejected the taking parent’s appeal of this decision. Subsequently the taking parent moved to another canton that refused to enforce the return order. In addition, the cantonal court in the new jurisdiction ordered a psychological examination of the child. The examination gave considerable weight to statements made by the eight-year-old child, and concluded that return of the child would cause grave psychological harm because the child had by then become integrated in Switzerland.

The above-referenced case was raised by the U.S. Charge d’Affaires and the Consul General with the highest Swiss non-elected children’s issues official in October 1999. The Embassy made a demarche to cantonal authorities. On November 14, 2000, the U.S. Ambassador and Consul General delivered a demarche in this case to the Minister of Justice. On September 13, 2001, the Swiss Federal Court upheld the refusal of the cantonal court to enforce the return order. The Federal Court regards the ruling as final and one that cannot be appealed. The Federal Court stated in its decision that enforcement is purely a question of Swiss national law separate from the Convention. On February 26, 2002, the U.S. Ambassador delivered a diplomatic note to the Minister of Foreign Affairs that expressed deep concern that the Federal Court decision was inconsistent with the Convention, and questioned Switzerland's ability to enforce a court order and implement a return under the Convention. On June 5, 2002, in response to the February diplomatic note, the Swiss Central Authority indicated that the Swiss Federal Court decision in this case did not set any substantive precedent that would preclude lower courts from ordering enforcement of a Hague return order.

Based on the actions taken in this case, it appears that a taking parent can resist enforcement of a return order by moving to another canton to relitigate issues already considered and decided by a Hague order. The Department views the inability to date of the Swiss legal system to prevent such relitigation and require mutual recognition and enforcement of federal and cantonal orders for return as inconsistent with Switzerland's obligations under the Convention. For this reason, the Department has placed Switzerland in the category of countries not fully compliant with the Convention. The decision suggests a systemic problem in the Swiss judiciary that can lead to decisions that contravene the intent of the Convention.

As noted in a similar case in Austria, the particular case noted above is not listed in the attachment as one of the cases unresolved after 18 months. While we strongly disagree with the outcome of this case, the Swiss judicial process is complete. We believe inclusion in the attachment would be misleading to Congress since, unlike other cases on this list, a final decision has been made in the Swiss courts.

Countries of Concern

THE BAHAMAS

In our April 2001 report, The Bahamas was listed as a Country of Concern. Despite recent action taken to move long-outstanding cases forward through the courts, we do not believe that The Bahamas'' performance has improved. The judicial and administrative authorities continue to fail to act expeditiously in proceedings for the return of the child as required by Article 11. There are currently no open cases for The Bahamas. The case that was open previously for over five years has been resolved in court and the Supreme Court ordered the child to remain in The Bahamas with the taking parent. The other case mentioned in the 2001 Compliance Report that was open for three years has also been resolved in the courts with the court finding return to the U.S. was not required under the Convention. A case opened in December 2001 has been closed at the left-behind parent's request.

The Bahamian Central Authority is consistently non-responsive to inquiries and requests by the U.S. Central Authority as required pursuant to Article 7. The Bahamian Central Authority has also been non-responsive to repeated representations by the U.S. Embassy during the past year.

COLOMBIA

As noted in previous reports, Colombian courts frequently request a home study of left-behind parents in the United States before ordering a child’s return to the United States. Such inquiries go to the merits of custody and are inappropriate for consideration in the context of a Hague proceeding, and are properly left to the courts of the country of habitual residence, as per Convention Article 16. A Convention case is not a child custody case but a mechanism to return a child to his or her country of habitual residence so that the courts there may decide contested custody issues. In addition, the U.S. Central Authority often has difficulty reaching the Colombian Central Authority and in receiving responses to routine inquiries. Over the last year there has been no evidence of substantial positive change in Colombia’s implementation of the Convention.

GERMANY

As noted in the 2001 Compliance Report, in mid-2000, President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright raised the issue of international parental child abduction with their German counterparts. As a result, a binational working group of experts was formed to discuss ways to improve implementation of the Convention. The group has met ten times to discuss systemic and case-specific problems. German authorities have been forthcoming in sharing views and information with the United States, and have taken concrete steps to improve their implementation of the Convention. Hague cases for return are now being heard in a more timely manner, and the number of decisions that are inconsistent with the Convention have decreased considerably. This is due in large part to the consolidation of courts that have authority to hear these cases, judicial training seminars in 2001 for Hague judges, and the active involvement of the German Central Authority.

While there have been relatively few applications in Germany for access under Article 21, in the past German courts often entered orders which did not provide for a meaningful relationship to develop with both parents and both cultures. Ordered access was so limited and conditional that it caused inordinate financial stress to the applicant parent, and emotional stress to both parents and children. In the binational working group’s discussions, we have encouraged Germany to realize the distinct set of circumstances that these transatlantic access cases bring, and that orders for access should be written in such a way that child’s right to know both parents will be maximized and the attendant stress minimized.

One case of particular concern is not mentioned in Annex A because the left-behind parent never filed a Hague application. However, it is illustrative of problems U.S. parents may face obtaining access to and maintaining a positive parent-child relationship.with their children who remain in Germany. In this case, the left-behind parent has been separated from his children for over 10 years.

In 1992, the taking parent informed the left-behind parent that she and the children were in Germany and would not return to the U.S. Approximately two months later the taking parent was admitted to a German psychiatric clinic. She requested the German Youth Authorities place the children in foster care. The taking parent and German authorities did not inform the left-behind parent or U.S. authorities of these developments.

In January 1993, the taking parent returned to the United States, leaving the children in Germany with foster parents. The taking parent refused to divulge the location of the children to the left-behind parent. In September 1993, the left-behind parent discovered that the children were in German Youth Authority custody, living with foster parents.

In January 1994, the taking parent and left-behind parent were legally divorced in New York. The court awarded full custody of the children to the left-behind parent with the consent of the taking parent. In April 1994, the Supreme Court of New York ordered the immediate return of the children. Shortly thereafter the left-behind parent traveled to Germany and spent a few weeks seeking physical custody of the children. The matter was pursued as a German civil court case.

In 1995, the German lower court ruled the immediate separation of the children from their foster parents and return to the U.S. would cause severe psychological damage. The court recommended the left-behind parent first become reacquainted with his children as a precondition for returning with them to the U.S. The left-behind parent returned to Germany and stayed for approximately one month, but was unable to reestablish a relationship with them to the satisfaction of the German court. The lower court ruled the children were to remain in Germany with their foster parents.

The left-behind parent filed an appeal with the county court in Konstanz, Germany. The appeal was denied in June 1995. As part of the appeal, the taking parent had requested the children be returned to the left-behind parent in the U.S. The court ruled that the children (then aged 4 and 5) objected to a return to the U.S. and that their return would cause them
psychological damage. The court awarded no specific visitation rights to the left-behind parent. A subsequent appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court was also rejected. The children continue to live with foster parents in Germany to this date.

Since 1995, the left-behind parent and left-behind grandparent in this case have continued to pursue the matter in order to re-establish a relationship with the children. Despite concerted efforts to work with U.S. Embassy and local officials, repeated obstacles have prevented them establishing a positive relationship with the children. U.S. officials in Germany have traveled extensively to meet with German officials in Konstanz, Bonn and Berlin. Consular officers and staff have worked closely with German authorities and the left-behind parent to assist in arranging visits with the children. U.S. Mission Germany officials met with Ministry of Justice and German CA officials in June 2001 and again in February 2002 to discuss the issue and the case psychologist's recommendations for resolving the case. A psychologist continues to work with all parties involved and therapy with the children continues. Whether any progress has been made will be revealed when the left-behind parent travels to Germany to attempt another visit with the children. A visit is planned for early 2003.

Despite improvements in Germany’s overall implementation of the Convention, a serious problem with enforcement of court orders still exists. At present, even a parent with a German court order for the child’s return to the U.S. or for access to that child in Germany cannot get the order enforced. As a consequence, the taking parent is all too often able to determine the case outcome simply by defying German court orders. Until this situation changes, fulfillment of the Convention''s objectives in Germany will likely remain problematic.

POLAND

The Polish Central Authority has continued to improve its cooperation and responsiveness in dealings with the U.S. Central Authority. The U.S. Central Authority does have areas of concern, primarily focused on the lower court decisions which involve custodial issues in Hague proceedings, inappropriate use of Article 13 (b) and decided lack of enforcement of return orders.

Aside from recent legislation that formalized the enforcement process, there is no specific legislation that implements the Convention in Poland. Unless there is a voluntary return, children normally remain in Poland during the entire Hague process, which often takes two years or more. There is a perception by left-behind fathers that there is a gender bias in favor of mothers when they are taking parents. Even though enforcement legislation has been passed, there appears to be reluctance on the part of officials to follow through with enforcement.

We have seen some improvements during the past year. Initial hearings are scheduled more promptly. Courts seem to be less inclined to insist on psychological profiles of both parents although allowing witnesses to attest to parenting skills is still common. Requests made to the Central Authority for case status reports are answered promptly and copies of court decisions are now provided in almost every case.

There has been on-going dialogue between the Polish Consul General and the Office of Children’s Issues Director in Washington, D.C. and U.S. Embassy officials and Ministry of Justice officials in Warsaw. These discussions have focused on mutual problems and possible resolutions in processing both incoming and outgoing Hague cases. Furthermore, there is a better understanding of specific difficulties.

SPAIN

There are currently 3 open cases of children from the United States abducted to or retained in Spain. Communication with the Spanish Central Authority has been sporadic, though several children have been returned from Spain to the United States in the past year through the Convention process. In one long-standing case, a 1996 order for return from the Spanish courts has never been enforced due to an apparent inability on the part of Spanish authorities to locate the child. An attempt by the father to negotiate a return through attorneys in mid-2002 collapsed, and the Spanish authorities have reported no progress in the case.

Section 2803 (a)(4) requests “detailed information on each unresolved case described in paragraph (1) and on actions taken by the Department of State to resolve each such case, including specific actions taken by the United States chief of mission in the country to which the child is alleged to have been abducted.” The information requested under this section is attached in Attachment A.

Section 2803 (a)(5) requests “information on efforts by the Department of State to encourage other countries to become signatories to the Convention.” The Department avails itself of appropriate opportunities that arise in bilateral contacts to persuade other countries not party to the Convention of the advantages that would derive from ratification or accession. The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs routinely raises the Convention in talks with foreign officials on other bilateral consular matters. The Department maintains a library of talking points and materials for its overseas posts to use in explaining to foreign governments the advantages of adhering to the Convention. The Department and its overseas posts have worked with the following countries in the past 18 months to encourage accession, ratification, or passage of implementing legislation: Brazil, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Guatemala, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Moldova, Nicaragua, Palau, Paraguay, Peru, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Uzbekistan. Of this group, Brazil, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Fiji, Malta, Moldova, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Uzbekistan had acceded to the Convention before the reporting period but the U.S. had not yet accepted their accession by the reporting period's end. During the reporting period, Estonia, Latvia, Nicaragua and Peru acceded to the Convention; the U.S. has not yet accepted their accession. The Department is in the process of assessing the ability of these countries to comply with the Convention.

Section 2803 (a)(6) requests “a list of the countries that are parties to the Convention in which, during the reporting period, parents who have been left-behind in the United States have not been able to secure prompt enforcement of a final return or access order under the Hague proceeding, of a United States custody, access, or visitation order, or of an access or visitation order by authorities in the country concerned, due to the absence of a prompt and effective method for enforcement of civil court orders, the absence of a doctrine of comity, or other factors.”

Enforcement Problems

GERMANY

As noted above, despite improvements in Germany’s overall implementation of the Convention, a serious problem with enforcement of court orders still exists. At present, even a parent with a German court order under the Convention for the child’s return to the U.S., or for access to that child in Germany, frequently cannot get the order enforced in Germany. As a consequence, the taking parent is all too often able to determine the case's outcome simply by defying German court orders. Until this situation changes, fulfillment of the Convention's objectives in Germany will likely remain problematic.

ISRAEL

The Israeli Central Authority has been cooperative and responsive in its dealing with the U.S. Central Authority. However, in several cases, orders for return have not been executed because of provisions (undertakings) in the orders requiring guarantees regarding the taking parents’ immigration or employment status upon return to the U.S. with the child. Additionally, an inability to locate the child and taking parent has resulted in non-enforcement of orders of return.

SPAIN

In several cases, orders for return have not been enforced because local law enforcement officials have not been aggressive in locating the children.

SWITZERLAND

Local officials must enforce court orders for return and access. In one significant case, local officials have failed to enforce an order for return issued by the federal courts. This refusal was upheld by the Swiss Federal Court in a decision that cannot be appealed.

Section 2803 (a)(7) requests “a description of the efforts of the Secretary of State to encourage the parties to the Convention to facilitate the work of non-governmental organizations within their countries that assist parents seeking the return of children under the Convention.”

Efforts in this particular area are carried out under the auspices and direction of the Secretary of State by the Office of Children’s Issues in the Department of State. One significant problem is the paucity of non-governmental organizations in Hague countries that assist parents seeking the return of children under the Convention. There is also the general reluctance of domestic organizations abroad to put themselves in the position of arguing for the return of their citizen children to another country, especially in the face of conflicting claims that are not easily settled outside a legal framework. We believe that most non-governmental organizations abroad accept the fact that their countries have given responsibility to governmental central authorities as the most effective means to assist parents with the return of their children. At the same time, there do exist non-governmental organizations, such as International Social Services (ISS) that work with central authorities under the Convention to facilitate the return of children. In one recent case, at the initiative of the U.S. Central Authority, the Swedish branch of ISS arranged a court-ordered return to the U.S. and escorted the child because the left-behind father was not able to go to Sweden.

ATTACHMENT “A”

LIST OF NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS FOR THE RETURN OF CHILDREN SUBMITTED BY UNITED STATES CITIZENS TO THE CENTRAL AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED STATES THAT REMAIN UNRESOLVED MORE THAN 18 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING.

**The following acronyms are used throughout:

CI-Office of Children’s Issues
CA- Foreign Central Authority
LBP- Left-behind parent
TP- Taking parent

Please note that case summaries below do not include records of the Department of State''s and overseas posts’ frequent continual conversations and meetings with Left-behind parents (LBP’s).

AUSTRALIA

The use of “undertakings” in Australian court decisions has declined steadily over the past three years.

Date of abduction/ retention: January 12, 1995
Date Hague application filed: June 19, 1995
Has child been located: Yes

In February 1996 the Australian Family Court ordered the return of the child. Rather than comply with the return order, the taking parent went into hiding. The Australian authorities issued a pick-up warrant in November 1996 and in January 1998, the taking parent and child were located. The taking parent immediately applied to file an appeal of the return order, which was ultimately denied by the Australian High Court in December 1999. The original return order included an extensive list of “undertakings” or conditions for return. Negotiations regarding the undertakings have involved both parents, the Australian and U.S. Central Authorities, and higher level contacts in both the Australian and U.S. governments (i.e. Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Mary Ryan and her Australian counterpart). Unfortunately, there have been several extended time periods where the LBP has been unreachable (due to moves with no forwarding address; disconnected telephone numbers, etc.) or he has not responded to repeated requests for certain documents. CI case officer has been unable to contact LBP by phone or mail since October 2001.

Action taken by Chief of Mission: None

BELGIUM

Date of Abduction: Sometime between October and December 1999. Exact date is disputed.
Date Hague application filed: May 31, 2000
Has child been located: Yes

In August 2000, a consular officer from the U.S. Embassy in Brussels met with the Belgian Central Authority to protest the delay in processing the application for the children's return. On August 18, 2000, the Central Authority requested in writing clarification of several factual issues in the Hague case. CI forwarded this to the left-behind parent for response. Additional items were provided to the Central Authority on October 21, 2000.

On January 3, 2001, CI requested clarification from the Central Authority on the status of the application and requested that the Central Authority promptly proceed with the case. The Central Authority indicated that they had not forwarded the application to the prosecuting attorney because the taking parent had alleged that she was a victim of domestic violence by the LBP. CI reminded the Central Authority that they were obligated under the Hague Convention to proceed with the case in a timely fashion and were not to consider the merits of a custody case. On April 6, 2001, the Central Authority confirmed that the Hague application had been transmitted to competent judicial authorities.

A Consular Officer at the U.S. Embassy in Brussels conducted a welfare and whereabouts visit with the children on April 30, 2001. On May 23 and June 20, 2001, CI contacted the Belgian Central Authority requesting a hearing date. On June 26, 2001, the Central Authority informed CI that a hearing was set for June 29, 2001. On July 9, 2001, the Central Authority
informed CI that the hearing had been postponed to July 13, 2001, at the request of the taking parent. On July 29, the court ruled that the children had been wrongfully removed from the U.S. However, since they were in Belgium for more than one year, the court ordered a social survey to be conducted within 6 months to determine whether the children had become resettled in Belgium.

On August 22, 2001, CI protested this ruling to the Central Authority since the Hague application had been forwarded to the Central Authority in a timely manner. On November 26, 2001, a consular officer with the U.S. Embassy Brussels met with the Central Authority to protest the delay in the case. The Central Authority acknowledged their responsibility for the delay and assured the consular officer that a new director had been appointed and the case would be handled expeditiously. On December 11, 2001, the consular officer attended a meeting between the Central Authority, the prosecuting attorney, and the left-behind parent’s attorney to work out a strategy on how to proceed. A hearing was held on February 1, 2002, on the issue of whether the children have become resettled in Belgium. A consular assistant from the U.S. Embassy in Brussels attended the hearing.

On March 18, 2002, the court affirmed the July 2001 order and scheduled the case for hearing on October 7, 2002. In May 2002, the LBP traveled to Belgium to meet with the Belgian official conducting the social investigation ordered by the court in July.

The hearing scheduled for October 7, 2002, was postponed several times and eventually took place on December 23, 2002. A consular assistant from the U.S. Embassy in Brussels attended the hearing. The court is expected to make a final decision on January 20, 2003.

Actions taken by Chief of Mission: Principal action delegated to consular chief and consular staff who have attended hearings and worked with the Belgian Central Authority and the left-behind parent.

COLOMBIA

Date of abduction: August 23, 1998
Date Hague application filed: March 11, 1999
Has child been located: Yes

The case has been in litigation for years. The child was ordered returned in March 2000, but the decision was reversed in October 2000, upon appeal. The Embassy and CI have approached Colombian authorities at various times on behalf of the LBP. In February 2001, the Embassy sent a diplomatic note to the Government of Colombia on the case. The note was answered ten months later (December 2001) with the information that the appeal, pending before the Constitutional Court since May 2001, had not been reviewed. In May 2002, the Colombian Constitutional Court ruled that the case for restitution of the child should be heard in the Bogota Civil Circuit Court. The Bogota Ninth Civil Circuit Court referred the case to a lower court. Since February 2001, the Embassy has sent four additional diplomatic notes on this case urging its swift completion in compliance with Colombian commitments under the Hague Convention. The Embassy's most recent note was forwarded in November 2002.

Actions taken by the Chief of Mission: Five diplomatic notes sent since February 2001 and, on January 13, 2003, the Ambassador met with the Foreign Minister to discuss the case.

ECUADOR

Date of Abduction/ Retention: August 12, 1990
Date Hague application filed for Access: April 14, 1993
Has child been located: Yes

Over the years, CI and consular officers at post have tried to contact the Ecuadorian Central Authority (ECA) numerous times on this access case. It should be noted, however, that this request for access was filed after Ecuador's accession to the Convention but the child was actually removed from the U.S. before the Convention was in effect between the U.S. and Ecuador.

In March 1994 and October 1998, post attempted welfare visits to the child. Both times the mother met the consular officer without the child. In May 1999, the Office Director of the U.S. Central Authority sent a letter inquiring about all outstanding cases submitted to the ECA, and attached a copy of the 1993 application in this case. In January 2000, CI faxed a copy of the May 1999 letter and attached application to the ECA. To date there is no record of a reply from the ECA. CI wrote to the LBP in May and July of 2000 and spoke to him in September 2000 at which time he said he was unhappy about the work being done on his case. In March and April of 2002, CI left word for the LBP several times. In April 2002, the LBP returned the calls and said he would fax a request for another welfare visit, but has not done so.

Actions taken by the Chief of Mission: None has been requested by the LBP.

GERMANY CASE 1

Date of Abduction or wrongful retention: July 17, 2000
Date Hague application filed: December 12, 2000
Has child been located: Yes

The child could not be located from the time he was taken to Germany in July 2000 until June 2001. Once located, the Hague case moved to the court quickly. The left-behind parent won the return of his child to the U.S. in both lower and appellate courts. The left-behind parent attempted to pick up his son for their return to the U.S. but did not get the assistance needed from local officials. The taking parent went into hiding with the child.

Through a German attorney, the left-behind parent pursued kidnapping charges against the taking parent. The left-behind parent hired a private investigator to locate the taking parent and the child. In early 2002, the taking parent and child were located and the taking parent detained by police and told to “check in “ on a regular basis.

The child is still in Germany with the taking parent. The last visit the left-behind parent had with the child was in July 2002, however, the left-behind parent has still been unsuccessful in securing the child’s return.

Actions taken by Chief of Mission: This Hague case was handled by the respective Central Authorities, and post was not informed of it, until October 2002, at the German-American Working Group meeting. The Ambassador hosted a gathering at his house in October 2002
for American and German participants in the U.S./German Working Group meeting at which this case was discussed.

GERMANY CASE 2

Date of Abduction or wrongful retention: August 1993
Date Hague application filed: December 12, 2000
Have children been located: Yes

The left-behind parent has sought access to his children for the past 8 years through the German courts. The First Family Division of the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt-am-Main granted the left-behind parent visitation rights on both March 13, 2000, and September 3, 2002. However, the left-behind parent has had no contact with the children because the taking parent refuses to comply with the court order. The German court has imposed a monetary penalty and restricted the custody rights of the taking parent.

U.S. Consulate General Frankfurt had extensive contact with the left-behind parent and local authorities regarding this case during the period January 1997-1998. Consular section staff made three attempts to conduct welfare and whereabouts visits with the children in March, August and September 1997. In addition, the consular section contacted the German court and youth authorities on behalf of the left-behind parent. CI instructed U.S. Consulate General Frankfurt to conduct an additional welfare and whereabouts visit in June 2002, on behalf of the left-behind parent. CI later withdrew the instruction and the visit was not conducted. The left-behind parent has not directly contacted the U.S. Consulate General since May 1998. CI continues to monitor the case. The U.S./German Working group last raised this case in October 2002.

Actions taken by Chief of Mission: In early 2000, the Ambassador directed that the DCM and consular section make a demarche to the German Ministry of Justice on behalf of American left-behind parents whose children were living in Germany. This case was among those mentioned as part of the demarche. In May 2000, the Secretary of State asked the German Foreign Minister to investigate the issue of German Hague Convention compliance. In June 2000, the President discussed the non-return of American children from Germany with the German Chancellor. Since that date, at the Ambassador's direction, the Embassy has participated in all U.S.-German Working Group meetings held in Germany and one in Washington. This case has been raised at each of those meetings. At the last Germany meeting of the Working Group in October 2002, the Ambassador personally hosted all of the German and American members of the group at his residence. The Embassy, at the Ambassador's direction, is in regular (at times daily) contact with the Children's Task Force of the German Ministry of Justice on both individual cases such as this one, as well as procedural and legal issues.

On a programmatic level, the Public Affairs section of the Embassy organized and carried out at the Ambassador's direction an International Visitor Program for German family law justice in 2001 and 2002, to acquaint them with U.S. practices in children's issues and family law.

GERMANY CASE 3

Date of Abduction or wrongful retention: 1998
Date of Hague application filed: July 1998

Has child been located: Yes

Parents divorced in 1997. In April 1998, the parents were given joint legal custody with the taking parent having primary physical custody. The taking parent took the child to Germany in 1998 and did not return him as agreed. In October 1998, the German court dismissed the Hague application for return. The lower court’s decision was sustained by the appeals court in January 1999.

In April 2000, the left-behind parent was stopped at an airport in Paris as he left the plane with his child. Police took the child and after 8 hours of holding the left-behind parent, the authorities released him without charges being brought against him.

The left-behind parent has filed a Hague application under Article 21 for access. The German Central Authority agreed to draft the motion with input from the left-behind parent and represent the left-behind parent in court. However, the left-behind parent was not satisfied with the draft motion because he felt it contained inaccuracies.

The US Consulate in Munich has handled this case since its inception. In the late 1990''s when this case was first in court, the consular officer spent substantial time on the case, attending hearings, writing to the judge, speaking with attorneys representing both parties, and conducting welfare visits with the child. Currently the consular officer is in periodic contact with both parents, and makes regular welfare visits to the child on behalf of the left-behind parent.

Action taken by Chief of Mission and U.S. Embassy: In early 2000, the Ambassador directed that the DCM and consular section make a demarche to the German Ministry of Justice on behalf of American left-behind parents whose children were living in Germany. This case was among those mentioned as part of that demarche. In May 2000, the Secretary of State asked the German Foreign Minister to investigate the issue of German Convention compliance, including this case. In June 2000, the President discussed the non-return of American children from Germany with the German Chancellor. Since that date, at the Ambassador's request, the Embassy has participated in all U.S.-German Working Group meetings held in Germany and one in Washington. At the last Germany meeting of the Working Group in October 2002, the Ambassador personally hosted all of the German and American members of the Working Group at his residence. The US/German Working Group raised this case in their October 2002 meeting.

On a programmatic level, the Public Affairs section of the Embassy organized and carried out at the Ambassador's direction an International Visitor Program for German family law judges in 2001 and 2002, to acquaint them with U.S. practices in children's issues and family law.

HONDURAS

Date of abduction/retention: January 28, 1998
Date of Hague application filed: May 27, 1998
Has child been located: Yes

In September 1998, the Foreign Ministry informed the US Embassy that the case could not be accepted because of an error in Honduran government proceedings during the ratification of the Hague Convention. Since that time the Embassy has urged Honduras through meetings with officials in the Ministry of Foreign and by a diplomatic note of March 2000 to honor its obligations under the Convention. In July 2001, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the Embassy that Honduras agrees that the Convention was in effect between Honduras and the United States. Consular officers at that time gave the Honduran Central Authority a copy of the May 1998 application and the Honduran Central Authority promised to look into the case. Other than making a visit in April 2002 to the home of the taking parent and reporting to the Embassy on the child’s well being, the HCA has not taken any action on the case.

Actions by Chief of Mission: None requested at present by LBP.

IRELAND

Date of abduction/retention: July 1999
Date Hague application filed: November 15, 1999
Has child been located: No

Child was originally retained in November/December 1998. There was an order for return in July 1999, and the Irish law enforcement authorities confirmed that the taking parent and child did leave the jurisdiction. However, they never appeared for the U.S. court hearing and new Hague applications were filed in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. CI, the Foreign Central Authorities and law enforcement have followed up on leads provided by the LBP to no avail. LBP has been encouraged to follow through with local law enforcement to obtain an Interpol notice.

Actions taken by Chief of Mission: None

ISRAEL

Date of abduction/retention: April 18, 1997
Date Hague application filed: October 6, 1997
Have children been located: No

On November 24, 1998, the court ordered that the children be returned to the U.S. On January 13, 1999, after attempts to locate the TP and/ or the children had failed, the Court issued another order instructing the police to locate the children. Unfortunately, efforts undertaken by police have also failed to locate the children.

The Office of Children’s Issues (CI) has regular, ongoing contact with the LBP, U.S. law enforcement, the Foreign Central Authority (CA), and through the CA, contact with foreign law enforcement. In an effort to help the CA and foreign law enforcement locate the mother, CI and federal law enforcement provided them with the TP's Department of Motor Vehicles photograph. At the request of CI, the director of the CA has had several meetings with law enforcement officials regarding their efforts to locate the children. CA informed CI that search efforts had been expanded, but whereabouts of the children remain a mystery.

Actions taken by the Chief of Mission: None.

MAURITIUS CASE 1

Date of abduction or wrongful retention: December 4, 1998

Date Hague application filed: February 3, 1999
Has child been located: Yes

This is one of two cases in Mauritius where the application was filed after the country became a party to the Convention (October 1993) but before the country’s legislative body incorporated the Convention into the law of Mauritius (October 2000). The Mauritian Central Authority (CA) said it could not accept the applications at the time because the Convention had not been incorporated into domestic law. In light of the passage of implementing legislation, and at the prompting of the Department and the Embassy, the Central Authority in Mauritius has said it believed it could bring the case before the Court in the hope of having it considered. The Department has been in communication with the applicant regarding the steps the CA would like him to take in order to move forward. In June 2002 the Mauritian government requested additional forms of documentation from the left-behind parent. The requested documents were delivered in October 2002. In November, the Mauritian State Law Office introduced a motion for the return of the children to the left-behind parent. At a subsequent hearing, the abducting parent objected to the motion, citing concern for the bests interests of the children. The Court scheduled an initial hearing for January 2003.

Action taken by the Chief of Mission: The U.S. Embassy in Port Louis has been in regular contact with the left-behind parent and the CA. In May 2002, Embassy representatives met with senior officials of the Ministry of Women's Rights, Child Development and Family Welfare to discuss this case. In June 2002, Embassy officials met with the Assistant Secretary of the Ministry of Women's Rights, Child Development and Family Welfare to discuss how the Ministry could assist in ensuring effective implementation and application of the Convention.

MAURITIUS CASE 2