ATTACHMENT “A”
LIST BY
COUNTRY 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. CI is an office in Overseas Citizen Services of the
Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State
CA- Foreign Central Authority responsible for Hague Abduction Convention
Issues in the Foreign country
LBP - Left-behind parent from whom a child has been abducted or wrongfully
retained abroad
TP- Taking parent, who abducted or wrongfully retained the child abroad
Please note that case
summaries below do not include references to the Department of State's and
overseas posts’ frequent and ongoing conversations and meetings with
left-behind parents.
COLOMBIA
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: August 23, 1998
Date Hague Application filed: March 11, 1999
Has child been located? Yes
The child was ordered
returned to the United States in March 2000, but the decision was reversed
in October 2000, upon appeal. Since then, the case has moved through 5
different courts without resolution. The U.S. Embassy and CI have approached
Colombian authorities at various times on behalf of the LBP. Since February
2001, the Embassy has sent five diplomatic notes, the most recent of which
was forwarded in November 2002, to the Colombian government on this case,
urging its swift completion in compliance with Colombian commitments under
the Hague Convention. In August 2003, Embassy Bogota asked for assistance by
diplomatic note in gaining consular access to the child. At the request of
the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bienestar Familiar, Colombia's
social services agency, attempted to facilitate a consular officer visit
with the child. The taking parent would not grant access unless ordered by a
Colombian court. The CA requested that the court hearing the Hague case
assist in obtaining consular access. The court has refused to do so.
Actions taken by the
Chief of Mission: Six diplomatic notes have been sent to the Colombian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the case since February 2001. In
January 2003, the Ambassador met with the Foreign Minister to discuss the
case, and in February 2003, the Consul General in Bogota met with the
director of the Colombian Central Authority to discuss Hague compliance
issues and this case in particular.
ECUADOR Case 1:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: February 6, 1995
Date Hague application filed: February 24, 1995
Has child been located? No
The LBP in this case
filed a Hague application for the child’s return immediately after the
abduction. The case remained in the Ecuador court system for several years
with little action. Eventually a court ordered the return of the child;
however, the order was never enforced because the TP hid the child.
Additionally, the LBP was not initially aware of the order for return,
having been misinformed by the attorney that the case had been lost. The
Ecuador CA did not inform the LBP of the return order either. In 2001, CI
contacted the LBP with information regarding the order for return. Recent
attempts by CI and the U.S. Embassy to obtain a case update from the CA have
proved unsuccessful.
ECUADOR Case 2:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: Nov. 16, 2001
Date Hague application filed: February 25, 2002
Have children been located? Yes
The LBP filed a Hague
application for the return of two children in February 2002. In June 2002,
the Embassy of Ecuador notified CI that additional legal documentation was
needed. CI requested clarification and was informed that the CA required a
court order relating to custody. CI protested this requirement with the CA,
noting that it was not necessary under the Hague Convention. CI last had
contact with the LBP in early 2002, when the LBP indicated that copies of
custody orders would be forwarded to CI when available. CI received no
correspondence from the LBP and, in July and September 2003, CI wrote to the
LBP, with no response.
FRANCE
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: April 2001
Date Hague application filed: June 2001
Has child been located? Yes
The child was abducted
while still a toddler and the LBP's Hague application for return of the
child was approved by the court of first instance in January 2002. The TP
appealed the court’s decision to return the child, lost the appeal, and
disappeared shortly thereafter. French authorities were unable to locate the
TP and child for nearly two years. Finally, in January 2004, they were found
hiding in a convent. The TP was arrested, but was released on parole and is
required to check in with the police twice a week. Authorities are working
to re-unite LBP with the child, who has not seen LBP in almost three years.
The Consul General and Embassy officials met with French CA representatives
in January 2004 to discuss Hague compliance issues and updates on this case.
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 LBP filed an
application for return of the child. In March 2002 a judge ruled the child
should be returned to the United States. The order was not enforced since
the TP and child went into hiding and could not be located. The TP’s
location was eventually confirmed in August 2003 and the German CA made
preparations to attempt enforcement of the return order. The LBP wished to
consult local counsel and the child’s guardian ad litem before enforcement
proceedings commenced, so enforcement was halted. There was also the fear
that TP would flee again if notified of enforcement proceedings.
Actions taken by Chief
of Mission: The Chief of Mission has directed consular staff to continue to
work with German Justice Ministry and CA officials to assist the LBP and the
child.
GERMANY Case 2:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: July 2000
Date Hague application filed: November 2000
Has child been located? Yes
The TP abducted the
child to Germany in July 2000. A judge reviewed the LBP's application and in
July 2001 ordered the child’s return to the United States. The TP appealed
the return order, lost the appeal, and refused to return the child. The LBP
and German authorities made several unsuccessful attempts to pick up the
child to enforce the return order. In late 2001, the TP and child went into
hiding. The LBP filed criminal charges in Germany against the TP for
kidnapping, and the latter was found guilty in 2003. The LBP recently
decided not to pursue enforcement of the return order due to the
psychological trauma previously inflicted upon the child. Mediation has been
suggested to assist the LBP in re-building a relationship with the child.
Actions taken by Chief
of Mission: The Chief of Mission has directed consular staff to continue to
work with German Justice Ministry and CA officials to assist the LBP and the
child.
HONDURAS
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: April 1, 1997
Date Hague application filed: May 27, 1998
Has child been located? Yes
The designated CA, the
Instituto Hondureño de la Niñez y la familia (IHNFA), has at no point
addressed the return of this child to the United States. IHNFA has, at the
request of the Embassy, made welfare visits to the child and reports of
these visits have been provided to the LBP. After removing the child to
Honduras, the Honduran-American TP re-entered the United States in 2003. The
child’s abduction to Honduras violated a U.S. court order issued in December
1997 that mandated that the child not be removed from the court’s
jurisdiction. The U.S. civil court that issued the order is holding the TP
in contempt and has indicated that the TP will remain in custody until the
child returns to the United States. The TP also faces pending criminal
charges under the International Parental Kidnapping Act. The Honduran
government is monitoring the TP Honduran-American national's U.S. civil
court case. At a recent U.S. court hearing, an official from the Honduran
Consulate indicated the Honduran government will not allow the child to
travel to the U.S. In 2003, Embassy representatives raised the issue of
Honduran non-compliance with the Hague Convention with IHNFA officials and
the President of the Honduran Congress.
IRELAND
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: July 1999
Date Hague application filed: November 15, 1999
Has child been located? Yes (subsequent to close of reporting period)
A July 1999 Irish
court order of return resulted in the TP and child traveling to the United
States but they did not attend a scheduled custody hearing in California.
Instead, they returned to Ireland and disappeared. A new return application
was filed but the Irish CA could not locate them. The TP and child were
found in October 2003, in the United Kingdom, living under assumed names.
The Irish CA transferred the case file to the UK CA and closed its case.
Hague proceedings are now underway in the U.K. The case was adjourned until
March 2004, pending submission of reports investigating the TP’s claim that
the child is now settled in the U.K.
ISRAEL
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: April 18, 1997
Date Hague application filed: October 6, 1997
Have children been located? No
In November 1998, an
Israeli court ordered that the children be returned to the United States;
the TP failed to comply with court order. In January 1999, after attempts to
locate the TP and children in Israel had failed, the court issued another
order instructing the police to locate the children. Unfortunately, efforts
undertaken by police since then have failed to locate the children.
CI has maintained
regular, ongoing contact with the LBP, U.S. and Israeli law enforcement, and
the Israeli CA. In an effort to help the CA and foreign law enforcement
locate the TP, CI and federal law enforcement provided them with the TP's
Department of Motor Vehicles photograph. At CI's request, the director of
the CA has had several meetings with law enforcement officials regarding
their efforts to locate the children. The CA informed CI that search efforts
had been expanded, but the children's whereabouts remain a mystery.
MAURITIUS Case
1:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: December 4, 1998
Date Hague application filed: February 3, 1999
Have children been located? Yes
This is one of two
cases in Mauritius in which 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 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 CI and the U.S. Embassy, the CA has said it believes it could
bring the case before the Court in the hope of having it considered.
Initially, a court date was scheduled for January 2003. However, no court
action was taken during the reporting period partly due to confusion over
documents required by Mauritius. The CA does not have a transparent
procedure. The LBP has been asked twice in the last year to revise an
affidavit required in support of the return application. In March 2003,
Embassy representatives conducted a welfare visit to the children. A
procedural hearing for submission of both parties' affidavits before a
Supreme Court judge was scheduled for February 2004.
The U.S. Embassy in
Port Louis has been in regular contact with the LBP 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. In early 2004, embassy officials met with the head of the
CA to discuss the case and press for its resolution in a manner consistent
with the Convention.
MAURITIUS Case
2:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: February 14, 1998
Date Hague application filed: June 9, 1998
Has child been located? Yes
This case was filed
under the Convention between the time of Mauritian accession and the passage
of implementing legislation. This was the reason the CA initially took no
action on it. In June 2002, the Mauritian government requested additional
documentation from the LBP. The requested documents were forwarded in
September 2002. An October 2002 request for another document was fulfilled
that same month, and in November 2002, the Mauritian State Law Office
introduced a motion to return the child to the LBP. Several court dates were
scheduled throughout 2003, but no hearings took place. An initial hearing
before a Supreme Court judge was held in January 2004 and a full hearing
before the Supreme Court is currently scheduled for June 2004.
Embassy officials have
assisted the LBP to interface with Mauritian government officials. In May
2002, Embassy representatives met with senior officials of the Ministry of
Women's Rights, Child Development and Family Welfare to raise the profile of
this case and followed up a month later with discussions with the Assistant
Secretary of the Ministry of Women's Rights, Child Development and Family
Welfare on improving the Ministry's effectiveness with respect to
implementation and application of the Convention. In early 2004, embassy
officials met with the head of the CA to discuss the case and press for its
resolution in a manner consistent with the Convention.
MEXICO Case 1:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: November 22, 1993
Date Hague application filed: November 8, 1994
Has child been located? No
The LBP filed the
application for return directly with the Mexican CA and first communicated
with the Department of State in August 2001. The TP filed an amparo
(constitutional challenge) objecting to a Family Judge order that the child
be taken into protective custody of social services pending the resolution
of the case. The amparo was denied but the TP successfully evaded
notice of the next hearing date and since then, all attempts to locate the
TP or child have failed. In December 2001, the LBP provided CI with an
address for the TP and the information was immediately forwarded to the CA.
Chief of Mission raised this case at Binational meetings in 1999 and 2000,
and with the Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001, highlighting
problems caused by not locating children. The Assistant Secretary for
Consular Affairs also discussed this issue with the Mexican delegation to
the Special Commission on the operation of the Hague Convention held in The
Netherlands in March 2001. The Department raised the status of this case
with the Legal Advisor to the Embassy of Mexico in November 2001. In October
2002, a judge returned the case to the CA after several unsuccessful
attempts to locate the child at addresses supplied by CI. The CA forwarded
the case to the Interpol unit at Mexico’s Federal Investigative Agency (AFI)
for further investigation to locate the child and taking parent. Assistant
Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in
November 2003. During that meeting the CA reported that Mexican authorities
are still unable to locate the child. Assistant Secretary Harty again raised
the case in a meeting with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of
Foreign Affairs in January 2004. Two attempts to arrange consular visits
through the TP's parent in early 2004 were unsuccessful.
MEXICO Case 2:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: August 1, 1993
Date Hague application filed: June 23, 1997
Have children been located? Yes
This case involves two
children. Filing of a complete Hague application was delayed first by the
LBP submitting an incomplete application, then by the Mexican CA’s repeated
requests for originals of documents and translations previously sent, and
finally because the court to which it was assigned could not locate the
file. The Department forwarded the incomplete Hague application to the CA in
June 1997. The Department notified the LBP that the application was
incomplete and requested the needed documents. In September 1999, the CA
acknowledged the application was complete. The Assistant Secretary for
Consular Affairs discussed this case with her Mexican counterparts at
Binational meetings in 1999 and 2000. Chief of Mission raised this case with
the Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001. The Assistant
Secretary for Consular Affairs also discussed this issue with the Mexican
delegation to the Special Commission on the operation of the Hague
Convention held in The Netherlands in March 2001.The Department queried the
CA about this case in August and October 2001. The Department raised the
case’s status with the Legal Advisor to the Embassy of Mexico in November
2001. CA staff advised the Department in February 2002 that the court had
lost the file in 2000 and they were preparing a certified copy from the CA
records to send to the court. The CA reported in October 2003 that the LBP
decided not to pursue the children’s return, asking instead for access. The
TP and children moved and the CA was unable to locate the children until
December 2003, when they were found at the home of a relative of the TP. The
case was returned to a judge for processing and the court has requested
confirmation whether the LBP is available to attend a hearing. Assistant
Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in
November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart
in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
MEXICO Case 3:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: February 28, 1996
Date Hague application filed: October 27, 1997
Has child been located? Yes
The court hearing the
case denied the application for return in June 1998, apparently finding that
the LBP was not exercising rights of custody before the child's removal to
Mexico. The decision was appealed by the LBP and in February 1999 the court
ordered the case remanded for a re-hearing because the child was not
represented by counsel in earlier court proceedings. The LBP appealed this
decision and asked the court to order the child returned to the United
States. That appeal was denied in February 2000. The LBP then filed an
amparo (constitutional challenge) and the case was forwarded back to
the courts for review.
Since then the Department has repeatedly asked the Mexican CA for
information regarding any progress in the courts. The Department facilitated
a visit by the LBP with the child and communication with the TP in November
1999 and helped pass communications between the CA and the LBP in 2002.
Chief of Mission raised this case at Binational meetings in 1999 and 2000,
and with the Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001. Assistant
Secretary for Consular Affairs discussed the case with the Mexican
delegation to the Special Commission on the operation of the Hague
Convention held in the The Netherlands in March 2001.The Department raised
the status of this case with the Legal Advisor to the Embassy of Mexico in
November 2001. The CA reported in October 2003 that an amparo filed
by the LBP had not been resolved. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case
in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January
2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
MEXICO Case 4:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: August 15, 1997
Date Hague application filed: January 2, 1998
Have children been located? Yes
In January 2001, CI
provided the Mexican CA the address of the school the two children attended,
but until recently the CA stated the children could not be located. Chief of
Mission raised this case at Binational meetings in 1999 and 2000, and with
the Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001, highlighting problems
caused by not locating children. The Assistant Secretary for Consular
Affairs also discussed this issue with the Mexican delegation to the Special
Commission on the operation of the Hague Convention held in The Netherlands
in March 2001. The Department raised the status of this case with the Legal
Advisor to the Embassy of Mexico in November 2001. The LBP visited both
children in the summer of 2003 near a residence where the children have
lived since being taken to Mexico. The CA reported in October 2003 that the
case was forwarded to a court and in January 2004 the CA stated that a
hearing date has been scheduled for April 2004. Assistant Secretary Harty
raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and
again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
MEXICO Case 5:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: September 18, 1993
Date Hague application filed: April 10, 1998
Have children been located? No
Originally this case
involved two children. In August 1998, the Mexican CA advised CI that the
court was setting a date for the Hague hearing and asked the Department if
the LBP would be able to attend. The LBP asked that the case be postponed
until September 1998 to allow the LBP to travel to Mexico. Throughout 1998
and 1999, the Department repeatedly asked the CA if a hearing date had been
set but the CA did not respond to these inquiries. The case was inactive for
approximately one year when CI attempts to contact the LBP and determine the
LBP's whereabouts proved unsuccessful. The case was re-activated in November
2000 when the LBP contacted CI and provided a current contact address.
In July 2001, the LBP
provided an address for the children and requested a consular welfare and
whereabouts visit. A consular officer conducted a welfare and whereabouts
visit in August 2001 and again in November 2002. CI offered assistance in
re-establishing the LBP's communication with the children by passing
letters, packages and mail to them and translating phone calls. The
Department passed exact location information regarding the children to the
CA in August 2001, but no action resulted. Chief of Mission raised this case
at Binational meetings in 1999 and 2000, and with the Foreign Ministry Under
Secretary in February 2001, highlighting problems caused by not locating
children. The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs also discussed this
issue with the Mexican delegation to the Special Commission on the operation
of the Hague Convention held in The Netherlands in March 2001. The
Department raised the status of this case with the Legal Advisor to the
Embassy of Mexico in November 2001. The LBP parent established telephone and
mail contact with the older child by telephone. The TP, who had left the
children with a grandparent and returned to the U.S., traveled to Mexico and
sent the younger child back to the U.S. As of May 2003, only the older of
the two children remained in Mexico. The LBP continued to pursue return of
the older child until CI learned that in the fall of 2003, the TP returned
to Mexico and took the older child, presumably bringing the child back to
reside in the U.S.
MEXICO Case 6:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: February 14, 1999
Date Hague application filed: February 19, 1999
Has child been located? Yes
This case involves two
children and was filed directly with the Mexican CA by the District
Attorney’s Office in California. California authorities work directly with
the LBP and the CA and inform CI of relevant important actions in the case.
In response to a request from CI and the U.S. Embassy for a status update,
the Mexican CA reported in October 2003 that the case had been forwarded to
a court in 1999. When the judge could not locate the children, the case file
was returned, presumably to the CA, but the file's present location is
unknown. The CA believes the file was forwarded to Mexican social services.
CI regards the application as still pending re-location and resolution, but
has not heard from the LBP since 2001. Chief of Mission raised this case at
Binational meetings in 1999 and 2000, and with the Foreign Ministry Under
Secretary in February 2001. The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs
also discussed this issue with the Mexican delegation to the Special
Commission on the operation of the Hague Convention held in The Netherlands
in March 2001. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational
Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met
with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
MEXICO Case 7:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: December 15, 1998
Date Hague application filed: March 8, 1999
Has child been located? No
The Department worked
with the LBP to locate the TP in Mexico in 1999 and 2000. The U.S. Mission
confirmed the the TP’s work address in August 2000. The Department forwarded
this information to the Mexican CA the same month. The CA, in response to
repeated CI requests for case updates, reported in January 2002 that the
case had been forwarded to the courts. The CA informed the U.S. Embassy in
early 2004 that the court had never located the TP, and the case file was
forwarded to Mexican Interpol for location of the TP and child. Chief of
Mission raised this case at Binational meetings in 1999 and 2000, and with
the Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001, highlighting problems
caused by not locating children. The Assistant Secretary for Consular
Affairs also discussed this issue with the Mexican delegation to the Special
Commission on the operation of the Hague Convention held in The Netherlands
in March 2001. Correspondence from CI to the LBP has remained unanswered
since 2002. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational
Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met
with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
MEXICO Case 8:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: January 10, 1994
Date Hague application filed: March 9, 1999
Has child been located? No
The LBP is a Mexican
national who forwarded the return application directly to the Mexican CA and
maintains direct contact with the CA. In November 1999, in response to a
request from the Mexican Embassy for an update on the case, CI queried the
CA. In April 2000, the CA responded that the TP had filed an amparo against
an order issued for the child's return and the CA would inform CI of the
results of the appeal. Department raised the status of this case with the
Legal Advisor to the Embassy of Mexico in November 2001. The TP's amparo was
eventually denied, thus allowing the return to proceed. Chief of Mission
raised this case at Binational meetings in 1999 and 2000, and with the
Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001, highlighting problems
caused by not locating children. The Assistant Secretary for Consular
Affairs also discussed this issue with the Mexican delegation to the Special
Commission on the operation of the Hague Convention held in The Netherlands
in March 2001. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational
Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met
with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In early
2004, the CA reported that the child must be located in order for the return
decision to be enforced.
MEXICO Case 9:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: May 5, 1999
Date Hague application filed: August 28, 1999
Have children been located? No
This case involves two
children and was filed directly with the Mexican CA by the District
Attorney’s Office in California. California authorities work directly with
the LBP and CA and inform CI of important actions in the case. Chief of
Mission raised this case at Binational meetings in 1999 and 2000, and with
the Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001, highlighting problems
caused by not locating children. The Assistant Secretary for Consular
Affairs also discussed this issue with the Mexican delegation to the Special
Commission on the operation of the Hague Convention held in The Netherlands
in March 2001.Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational
Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met
with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In response
to a case status request, the CA informed U.S. Embassy consular officials in
early 2004 that the judge assigned to the case had not been able to locate
the children.
MEXICO Case 10:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: December 1, 1997
Date Hague application filed: September 29, 1999
Have children been located? No
The Mexican CA
forwarded this case to the courts in early 2000. No hearing date has ever
been set because the exact location of the TP and the two children is still
unknown. The Department raised the status of this case with the Legal
Advisor to the Embassy of Mexico in November 2001. At a meeting with the CA
in February 2002, the Department raised the case as illustrative of the
problems caused in child abduction cases when courts are unable to locate
children. In the spring of 2003, CI provided new information regarding the
children's location to the CA. Chief of Mission raised this case at
Binational meetings in 1999 and 2000, and with the Foreign Ministry Under
Secretary in February 2001, highlighting problems caused by not locating
children. The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs also discussed this
issue with the Mexican delegation to the Special Commission on the operation
of The Hague Convention held in the Netherlands in March 2001. Assistant
Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in
November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart
in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In response to a case status
request from CI, the CA reported in early 2004 that the case was sent to a
court but no judge had yet been assigned to handle the case.
MEXICO Case 11:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: July 4, 1999
Date Hague application filed: November 4, 1999
Have children been located? No
The Mexican CA
forwarded the case to the courts in 2000 but to date the authorities have
not been able to locate the two children or TP in Mexico. The LBP, through a
private investigator, developed information that the children may be in
Canada. The Department forwarded a copy of the Hague applications to the
Canadian CA as well. Chief of Mission raised this case at a Binational
meeting in 2000, and with the Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February
2001, highlighting problems caused by not locating children. The Assistant
Secretary for Consular Affairs also discussed this issue with the Mexican
delegation to the Special Commission on the operation of The Hague
Convention held in The Netherlands in March 2001.The Department raised the
status of this case with the Legal Advisor to the Embassy of Mexico in
November 2001. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational
Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met
with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Mexican
CA informed the U.S. Embassy in early 2004 that it would contact the LBP to
obtain more leads on the children's whereabouts. Though the left-behind
parent applied for return of two children, the older child is now over 16
and thus falls outside the scope of the application.
MEXICO Case 12:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: October 5, 1999
Date Hague application filed: December 2, 1999
Has child been located? No
In June 2000, the
Department provided the TP’s address to the Mexican CA. The case was
forwarded to the presiding judge in the state in which the child was located
who initially refused to take this case for jurisdictional reasons. While
the jurisdictional issue was under review by the Mexican courts, the
Department discussed alternate non-Hague remedies with the TP. The
Department also worked with the U.S. Department of Justice to re-enter the
child’s name into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) computer
system in case the child returned to the United States without the LBP's
knowledge. Local U.S. police had taken the child’s name out of the system
once the TP and child were located in Mexico claiming that the child was no
longer “missing.”
The jurisdictional
issue was eventually resolved and a hearing scheduled, but the TP
disappeared with the child. After the TP failed to appear at three separate
hearing dates between March and June 2001 the judge, in an unprecedented
move in a Hague Convention case in Mexico, issued a warrant for the TP's
arrest. Chief of Mission raised this case at a Binational meeting in 2000,
and with the Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001, highlighting
problems caused by not locating children. The Assistant Secretary for
Consular Affairs also discussed this issue with the Mexican delegation to
the Special Commission on the operation of the Hague Convention held in The
Netherlands in March 2001.The Department discussed the status of the case
with the CA in October 2001 and queried when the warrant would be executed.
The Department raised the status of this case with the Legal Advisor to the
Embassy of Mexico in November 2001. At a meeting with the CA in February
2002, citing this case, the Department raised the problem caused in child
abduction cases when children cannot be located by the court. The LBP’s
contacts reported sighting the TP and child in November 2002. The second
judge assigned to the case attempted to find the child. During the judge's
visit to the presumed residence, he found a room containing the child's
belongings but no child. The TP has not been arrested but the case remains
with the judge pending location of the child. Assistant Secretary Harty
raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and
again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
MEXICO Case 13:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: June 16, 1998
Date Hague application filed: February 21, 2000
Has child been located? No
The Mexican CA
forwarded this case to the courts in April 2000. The family judge was unable
to locate the child at the address provided and requested through the CA a
new address or additional information to help locate the child or TP. CI
forwarded this request to the LBP in October 2001. Chief of Mission raised
this case at a Binational meetings in 2000 and with the Foreign Ministry
Under Secretary in February 2001, highlighting problems caused by not
locating children. The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs also
discussed this issue with the Mexican delegation to the Special Commission
on the operation of the Hague Convention held in The Netherlands in March
2001. The Department raised the status of this case with the Legal Advisor
to the Embassy of Mexico in November 2001. At a meeting with the CA in
February 2002, the Department raised the problems caused in child abduction
cases when children cannot be located by the court. The CA reported in
October 2003 that the case was forwarded to a judge for processing. However,
the child was not found, and the case was subsequently forwarded to Mexican
Interpol for investigation to locate the child. Assistant Secretary Harty
raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and
again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
MEXICO Case 14:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: February 4, 2000
Date Hague application filed: March 19, 2001
Has child been located? No
The case was referred
to Mexican Interpol after the Mexican CA was unable to locate the child. The
LBP firmly believes that the TP and child live with the TP's parent. It is
believed that the TP uses several aliases to conceal their identity. CI
requested FBI to visit the TP's parent in May 2002. CI continues to work the
case by requesting status updates from the Mexican CA and contacting the LBP.
CI received no response from the LBP to correspondence sent in 2003,
although the correspondence was not returned as undeliverable. Assistant
Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in
November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart
in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The CA reported in February 2004
that Mexican Interpol has been unable to locate the child.
MEXICO Case 15:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: July 1999
Date Hague application filed: December 9, 1999
Have children been located? No
After the LBP filed
for dissolution of marriage in 1999, the TP took the two children to Mexico.
The children were never located; the Mexican CA transferred the case to
Mexican Interpol for investigation of the TP's and children's whereabouts in
early 2002. Chief of Mission raised this case at a Binational meeting in
2000, and with the Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February 2001,
highlighting problems caused by not locating children. The Assistant
Secretary for Consular Affairs also discussed this issue with the Mexican
delegation to the Special Commission on the operation of the Hague
Convention held in The Netherlands in March 2001. Assistant Secretary Harty
raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and
again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
MEXICO Case 16:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: Early 2000
Date Hague application filed: Spring 2000
Has child been located? Yes
The case was filed
directly with the Mexican CA by the California District Attorney. The CA
reported to U.S. Embassy consular officers in the fall of 2003 that the
judge reviewing the case had denied return after the LBP failed to provide
proof of rights of custody. The CA later clarified that, in denying return,
the judge also considered evidence that the LBP had brought the child to
Mexico and left the child with a relative, who then voluntarily turned the
child over to the TP. Chief of Mission raised this case at Binational
meetings in 2000, and with the Foreign Ministry Under Secretary in February
2001, highlighting problems caused by not locating children. The Assistant
Secretary for Consular Affairs also discussed this issue with the Mexican
delegation to the Special Commission on the operation of the Hague
Convention held in The Netherlands in March 2001. Assistant Secretary Harty
raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and
again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
MEXICO Case 17:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: September 4, 2000
Date Hague application filed: February 12, 2001
Has child been located? No
This case originally
involved three children taken to Mexico by the TP for a two-week visit. The
LBP filed a return application when the TP refused to return them after the
two weeks. The two older children escaped and were returned to the LBP in
April 2001. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational
Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met
with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The case
regarding the youngest child was finally brought before a judge in February
2004. The judge requested original documents because of rumors that a cousin
who looks very much like the LBP has stated the child belongs to her. The
Mexican CA cannot locate the original documents forwarded in support of the
Hague application but has "certified" all documents associated with the case
for the court's consideration. California justice officials are obtaining a
new original birth certificate to forward to the court.
MEXICO Case 18:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: January 8, 2000
Date Hague application filed: May 1, 2001
Has child been located? Yes, after reporting period ended
This case remained
active throughout the reporting period but was resolved in October 2003 by
the child's return to the LBP. From the time of the Hague application filing
until the child was recovered, Mexican authorities were unable to locate the
child at any of the addresses provided by the LBP. Relatives of the LBP
visited Mexico and pointed out the house where the child lived. The TP and
LBP met soon after but, by early 2002, discussions regarding access to the
child broke down. The LBP was convinced that the TP and child continued
residing in the same community, although a judge visited the address and did
not find the child. The child was recovered in October 2003 when the TP was
stopped for a traffic violation in the U.S. Upon locating the child, it was
discovered that the TP had returned to the U.S. with the child in early
2003.
MEXICO Case 19:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: November 16, 1998
Date Hague application filed: June 11, 2001
Has child been located? No
This case was filed
directly with the Mexican CA by the District Attorney’s Office in
California. California authorities work directly with the LBP and CA and
inform CI of relevant actions in the case. CI learned about the case in
March 2002. U.S. Embassy officials, California justice officials and the
Mexican Consulate in Los Angeles have all pressed the Mexican CA for updates
on Mexican action taken on the case. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the
case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in
January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. In early 2004, the CA informed the U.S. Embassy that a
judge has been assigned the case though no hearing has yet been scheduled.
MEXICO Case 20:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: February 9, 2001
Date Hague application filed: July 25, 2001
Has child been located? No
This case was filed
directly with the Mexican CA by the District Attorney’s Office in
California. California authorities work directly with the LBP and CA and
inform CI of relevant actions in the case. The TP contacted the LBP twice
requesting money for the child's medical treatment. In those requests, the
TP gave LBP a contact telephone number and address that was the same as the
location information listed on the Hague application. Assistant Secretary
Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003
and again in January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The CA has been unable to locate the child and
informed the U.S. Embassy in early 2004 that the case file has been referred
to Mexican Interpol for investigation to locate the TP and child.
MEXICO Case 21:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: August 28, 2000
Date Hague application filed: August 23, 2001
Have children been located? No
The TP took the two
children to Mexico in August 2000. The LBP did not know their location until
the older child telephoned to inform the LBP that they would not return to
the U.S. LBP has supplied the Mexican CA and Interpol with numerous
addresses for the TP and TP's family to assist in finding the children. U.S.
Embassy consular officials attempted to visit the children in June 2003 but
did not find them at home. The CA suggested that LBP should consider
changing the application from return to access. The LBP refused to do so.
Continuing attempts to locate the children have proved unsuccessful to date.
The CA has forwarded the case to a state superior court for action, but no
judge has yet been assigned to the case. Assistant Secretary Harty raised
the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in
January 2004, when she met with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of
Foreign Affairs.
MEXICO Case 22:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: August 21, 2000
Date Hague application filed: August 30, 2001
Has child been located? No
The LBP last saw the
child in July 2000 before the TP took the infant to visit grandparents in
Mexico. The LBP has provided the CA with updated address information for the
TP and child several times since filing the return application, but the
child has not been located. The Mexican CA referred the case to Interpol for
location of the child and TP in summer 2002 and no progress has been
reported since. Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in the Binational
Committee Meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004, when she met
with her counterpart in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
POLAND Case 1:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: November 28, 1998
Date Hague application filed: August 4, 1999
Have children been located? No
In July 2001, a court
of appeals overturned a lower court decision and ruled in favor of returning
the children to the LBP. In November 2001, the TP was ordered to return the
children to the LBP, who had traveled to Poland, within three days. At that
time, the TP disappeared with the children, and they have been missing ever
since. The LBP traveled to Poland several times, employed the services of a
private investigator, and they both worked with the Polish regional
prosecutor. In August 2003, Polish authorities located two children they
believed to be the missing children and emailed photographs to the LBP, who
determined that the children were not the ones being sought in this case.
U.S. Embassy officials
in Warsaw have repeatedly brought this case to the attention of the Polish
CA, the Ministry of Justice, and the head of the International Cooperation
Office. Assistant Secretary Maura Harty and Deputy Assistant Secretary
Janice Jacobs each discussed this case with the Consular Affairs Chief of
the Polish Foreign Ministry in 2003; Embassy officials specifically raised
the case with the Polish Foreign Ministry in January 2003 and with the
Ministry of Justice in November 2003. In February 2004, Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Daniel Smith, accompanied by the
U.S. Consul General, delivered a formal demarche to the senior officials of
the Polish Foreign Ministry regarding U.S. concern about Poland's continued
inability to locate the children. Assistant Secretary Maura Harty reiterated
our concerns about this case in a meeting with Polish Ministry of Foreign
Affairs Undersecretary Jakub T. Wolski in February 2004 when she discussed
the establishment of a high-level bilateral working group on consular
issues.
Action taken by the
Chief of Mission: Diplomatic note in 2001, a meeting with Minister of
Justice in 2002, two letters to Polish courts in 2002, three diplomatic
notes and three letters to local officials in 2003.
POLAND Case 2:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: March 30, 2000
Date Hague application filed: December 12, 2000
Has child been located? Yes
In January 2001, the
Polish Court of Justice issued a temporary order that the child not be
removed from Poland. Pending a final decision on the case, the court first
granted the LBP access to the child in July 2001. In June 2003, the court
ordered psychological exams of both parents and the child. The LBP has
traveled to Poland several times to accommodate the court and visit with the
child. In November 2003, the court denied the return of the child; an appeal
was filed the following month. CI has expressed concern to the CA regarding
the psychological examination of the parents, and the continued use of a
faulty translation of the Hague Convention by courts deciding Hague cases,
including in this case. In February 2004, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Consular Affairs Daniel Smith, accompanied by the U.S. Consul
General, delivered a formal demarche to senior officials of the Polish
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The demarche requested that the Polish
government take steps to remove the flawed translation of the Convention
from circulation, and that the decision to deny return in this case be
reviewed by the Ministry of Justice. Assistant Secretary Maura Harty
reiterated the Department's concerns about this case in a meeting with
Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs Undersecretary Jakub T. Wolski in
February 2004 when she discussed the establishment of a high-level bilateral
working group on consular issues. In late February 2004, the Polish Circuit
Court denied the appeal, stating that the lower court correctly found that
the child and TP had returned to Poland in November 1999 with the LBP's
knowledge and consent, that the child's March 2000 visit to the LBP in the
U.S. was temporary and, therefore, the child was not "habitually resident"
in the United States at the time of the alleged abduction. The appellate
court's decision is final and cannot be appealed.
Actions taken by the
Chief of Mission: The U.S. Ambassador to Poland and the Polish Minister of
Justice discussed this case in a meeting in February 2002. Separately,
Embassy consular officials also met with Ministry of Justice officials on
the case in 2002.
SOUTH AFRICA
Case 1:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: May 2, 2001
Date Hague application filed: August 7, 2001
Have children been located? Yes
The first hearing on
this case did not occur until September 2002, over a year after the filing
of the Hague application. In November 2002, the court ruled to deny return.
The court's stated basis for the decision was a finding that the LBP had
acquiesced to the children's removal to South Africa. The court accepted
correspondence between the parents as evidence that the LBP had acquiesced
in the children's continued residence in South Africa. The LBP was granted
leave to appeal in November 2002. In February 2003, the LBP was informed
that the Court had lost its files on this case and that LBP would have to
pay costs of reconstructing the files. The November 2003 appeal hearing
before the High Court resulted in a judgment dismissing the appeal and
assigning the LBP costs, thus affirming the denial of the children's return
to the U.S. Consular staff attended the November 2003 appeals court hearing.
In December 2003, the LBP was considering whether to file a separate appeal.
SOUTH AFRICA
Case 2:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: May 11, 1998
Date Hague application filed: December 29, 1998
Have children been located? Yes
This case has
languished as a result of issues regarding funding of the legal costs
related to the Hague application hearing process. CI has contacted the South
African CA a number of times to seek its assistance. The LBP had a South
African attorney in February of 1999, but the South African Legal Aid Fund
that was paying the attorney to handle the case ran out of money. The
attorney was not willing to continue without being paid and the LBP would
have had to assume legal costs. The LBP has not made any recent efforts to
communicate with CI.
SPAIN Case 1:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: March 01, 1995
Date Hague Application filed: June 12, 1995
Has child been located? Yes, but then subsequently disappeared.
A lower court ordered
the child returned in February 1996 and an appeals court upheld the decision
in 1996. Subsequent to the final ruling, the TP took the child into hiding
in Spain. From June 1995 through July 2001, repeated search orders have been
issued by the Spanish Courts and continuous attempts were made by the
Department of State and the LBP to share possible leads with local Spanish
officials as to the child's location. Despite the Spanish authorities'
inability to locate the child and enforce the return order, the TP was able
to continue legal efforts to resist the return order. In July 1999 a final
motion to vacate the judgment for return was rejected, but the order was
again not immediately enforced. In July 2001, the LBP was notified that the
TP had initiated divorce proceedings in Spanish courts that would include
custody hearings. CI brought the conflict with the Hague return order to the
attention of the CA, but no response was forthcoming. Subsequently, the TP
contacted the LBP through the TP’s attorney, and two separate private
attempts to negotiate the child's return have failed. An Interpol notice has
been issued in connection with the case. Divorce proceedings are ongoing in
Spain; the LBP has requested that a U.S. divorce order be recognized. The
Spanish authorities have yet to enforce the order for return. A local
attorney did locate the TP and child. However, the judge failed to act to
enforce the return order.
This case has been
raised repeatedly by Embassy Madrid and by Assistant Secretary Maura Harty
during her March 2003 visit to Spain.
SPAIN Case 2:
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: September 06, 2000
Date Hague Application filed: November 13, 2000
Has child been located? Yes
The CA located the
child almost immediately and a consular officer performed a welfare visit in
November 2000. However, when an attempt was made to serve the TP for the
Hague hearing in March 2001, the child had been moved. A second search was
conducted and the TP was served in October 2001. Repeated CI requests for
notice of the court hearing date went unanswered until January 2002, when
the CA informed CI that the hearing was postponed pending a psychological
evaluation of the child. A hearing date was set for June 2002. Repeated
attempts by CI and Embassy Madrid to follow up with the CA brought no
information until May 2003,when CI received a fax with an untranslated court
ruling dated September 2002, denying the Hague application and indicating
that the attorney prosecuting the application (a Spanish government lawyer)
had declined to appeal. In the latter part of 2003, CI confirmed that no
further appeals were available and advised the LBP that it would provide
assistance to pursue non-Hague remedies if the LBP wished.
TURKEY
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: February 2, 2001
Date Hague application filed: March 5, 2002
Has child been located? Yes
In March 2002, the CA
acknowledged receipt of the Hague application and stated it had been sent to
the local public prosecutor to see if a voluntary return could be
negotiated. In May and June 2002, CI and the U.S. Embassy in Ankara made
repeated requests for a status report, with no response. In July 2002, the
CA stated that the TP would not agree to return the child voluntarily and a
hearing had been scheduled for June 2002. The LBP had been waiting to hear
if voluntary return negotiations were successful before retaining a Turkish
attorney. CI asked if the June 2002 hearing date was a misprint. In August
2002, CI was notified by the CA that in June, a Turkish court had denied the
LBP’s Hague application for return. CI immediately protested to the CA that
the LBP did not have legal representation at the hearing. The CA agreed and
asked the local public prosecutor to lodge an appeal. In October 2003 the
appeals court upheld the decision of the lower court without taking into
consideration that the LBP had been unrepresented in the first proceeding.
The court stated, incorrectly, that the LBP had been represented by the CA
public prosecutor. The CA asked the local public prosecutor to request
whatever reexamination of the appellate court’s decision was possible.
The Embassy raised
this case multiple times with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of
Justice, and Appeal Court officials, both in person and in writing.
Assistant Secretary Maura Harty discussed this case and Hague compliance
issues in general with the Minister of Justice in December 2003. In January
2004, CI learned that the Turkish Supreme Court refused to review the
appeals court decision on the grounds that the CA did not appeal in a timely
manner. The father did have legal representation during the two appeal
cases. With the Hague process exhausted, the case for return of the child
was closed in early 2004.
ZIMBABWE
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: August 8, 2000
Date Hague application filed: November 28, 2000
Has child been located? Yes
Although U.S. Embassy
consular personnel have maintained regular contact with the Zimbabwean CA
regarding this case, there has been no court action. After submission of the
Hague return application to the CA, the TP agreed to voluntarily return to
the U.S. with the child. Both the TP and child are still in Zimbabwe; they
are awaiting the TP's U.S. immigration processing so the TP and child can
travel back to the U.S. together. The LBP has not been in contact with CI
since February 2002 and attempts by CI to contact the LBP have been
unsuccessful.
|
