Foreign Affairs: Specific Action Plan Needed to Improve Response to
Parental Child Abductions (Letter Report, 03/29/2000, GAO/NSIAD-00-10).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on
international parental child abductions, focusing on the adequacy of
federal response to: (1) problems identified with the federal
government's response to international parental child abductions; (2)
the Department of Justice's (DOJ) use of the 1993 International Parental
Kidnapping Crime Act to prosecute abducting parents; and (3) the actions
federal agencies plan to take to address the problems.
GAO noted that: (1) the Department of State and DOJ, the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children, and left-behind parents have
identified problems and issues with the federal government's response to
international parental child abduction; (2) these problems include the
need for more systematic diplomatic efforts to work with foreign
governments to resolve problems of noncompliance with the Hague
Convention and the lack of services such as financial assistance and
counseling to left-behind parents; (3) State and DOJ cited weaknesses in
State's system for tracking and managing child abduction cases; (4)
these problems create obstacles to left-behind parents in their attempts
to locate, gain access to, and secure the return of their children; (5)
DOJ's use of the 1993 International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act has
been limited; (6) since 1993, DOJ has indicted 62 parents under the act,
which resulted in 13 convictions; (7) left-behind parents believe DOJ
has not used this law to sufficiently prosecute parents who abduct
children from the United States; (8) DOJ believes that each abduction
requires a review based on its merits to decide whether to prosecute an
abducting parent, including whether such prosecution might compromise
efforts to return a child under the Hague Convention; (9) both DOJ and
State note that criminal prosecution seeks to punish abducting parents
but does not seek or ensure the return of the child; (10) State and DOJ
have recognized that they have problems and have planned actions they
believe will correct most of them; (11) for example, they plan to close
gaps in federal services to left-behind parents, develop an integrated
case-tracking system to manage international child abduction cases, and
undertake studies to improve compliance with the Hague Convention; (12)
although some progress has been made in these areas, their plans lack
the details necessary for effective implementation, and (13) for
example, State and DOJ have not developed a clear strategy or plan that
defines measurable goals, objectives, and resources required to fully
implement their planned actions.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: NSIAD-00-10
TITLE: Foreign Affairs: Specific Action Plan Needed to Improve
Response to Parental Child Abductions
DATE: 03/29/2000
SUBJECT: Children
Child custody
Parents
International agreements
Crimes or offenses
Law enforcement information systems
International cooperation
Convictions
Law enforcement
Interagency relations
IDENTIFIER: DOJ Team Hope Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Testimony. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO/NSIAD-00-10
Appendix I: Party Countries With the United States to the Hague Convention
24
Appendix II: Comments From the Department of State
26
Appendix III: Comments From the Department of Justice
32
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
36
Table 1: Cases of Parents' Abduction or Retention of Children From
the United States (May 1997 through Dec. 1999) 7
Table 2: Justice Department Actions Under the 1993 International
Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (Fiscal years 1994-99) 8
Table 3: Proposed Actions to Improve the Federal Response to International
Parental Child Abduction 17
National Security and
International Affairs Division
B-284189
March 29, 2000
The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman
Chairman, Committee on International Relations
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The State Department estimates that about 1,000 children are abducted from
the United States annually.1 International parental child abduction occurs
when a parent removes a child from the United States or retains a child
outside the United States violating the parental rights, including
visitation, of the left-behind parent. The United States, along with 53
other countries, is a party to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil
Aspects of International Child Abduction,2 which establishes civil
procedures that the State Department may use to locate, access, or return
abducted children to resolve custody issues.3 It is in force between the
United States and
48 other countries. In addition, the Congress passed the International
Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993,4 which allows the Justice Department
to criminally prosecute abducting parents. The National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children, a private nonprofit organization that receives
federal government funding, works with the State and Justice Departments
when seeking the return of children abducted from the United States.
Left-behind parents and others have raised a number of concerns about the
adequacy of the federal government's response to international parental
child abduction. Because of these concerns, you asked us to report on
(1) problems identified with the federal government's response to
international parental child abductions, (2) the Justice Department's use of
the 1993 International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act to prosecute abducting
parents, and (3) the actions federal agencies plan to take to address the
problems. 5
Our review focused on problems with the federal government's response to
international parental child abduction that were widely recognized and
reported by the federal government and left-behind parents. To gather
information for our analysis, we interviewed over 30 key officials and
representatives from the State and Justice Departments, the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children, and the California State Attorney
General's office.6 We also discussed individual cases with five U.S.
left-behind parents.
To report on problems with the federal response, we reviewed the State and
Justice Departments' April 1999 Report to the Attorney General on
International Parental Kidnapping and the State Department's 1999 Report on
Compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International
Child Abduction. These reports documented substantial problems with the
federal response and identified key issues related to Hague Convention
noncompliance, respectively. To confirm and expand our understanding of the
information in these reports, we interviewed the officials responsible for
preparing them. We also interviewed representatives from the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children, who commented on the State and Justice
Departments' April 1999 report. In addition, we reviewed a draft American
Bar Association's study, prepared in 1998, which outlined problems affecting
left-behind parents' efforts to resolve their abduction cases. We also met
with an author of the study, who discussed the contents of the report and
attested to its findings.
To determine the extent to which the Justice Department has used the
International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993 to pursue abducting
parents, we reviewed data and information from the Justice Department's
Office of International Affairs, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys,
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. To further understand how decisions
to pursue criminal charges are made, we interviewed three assistant U.S.
attorneys (in California, Maryland, and Virginia) who were identified by
their executive office as representative sources of information about
departmental prosecutions under the act.
To assess the actions federal agencies plan to take to address their
problems, we reviewed the recommendations State and Justice proposed in the
April 1999 Report to the Attorney General on International Parental
Kidnapping. We also reviewed a list of actions State and Justice plan to
take over the next 3 years to improve the federal response. To confirm our
understanding of these actions, we interviewed the senior-level officials
from State and Justice responsible for developing the list and setting
implementation priorities.
We conducted our work from May 1999 through March 2000 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
The State and Justice Departments, the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children, and left-behind parents have identified problems and
issues with the federal government's response to international parental
child abduction. These problems include the need for more systematic
diplomatic efforts to work with foreign governments to resolve problems of
noncompliance with the Hague Convention and the lack of services such as
financial assistance and counseling to left-behind parents. They also cited
weaknesses in State's system for tracking and managing child abduction
cases. Together, these problems create obstacles to left-behind parents in
their attempts to locate, gain access to, and secure the return of their
children.
The Justice Department's use of the 1993 International Parental Kidnapping
Crime Act has been limited. Since 1993, Justice has indicted 62 parents
under the act and obtained 13 convictions. Left-behind parents believe
Justice has not used this law sufficiently to prosecute parents who abduct
children from the United States. The Department believes that each abduction
requires a review based on its merits to decide whether to prosecute an
abducting parent, including whether such prosecution might compromise
efforts to return a child under the Hague Convention. Both Justice and State
note that criminal prosecution seeks to punish abducting parents but does
not seek or ensure the return of the child.
The State and Justice Departments have recognized that they have problems
and have planned actions they believe will correct most of them. For
example, they plan to close gaps in federal services to left-behind parents,
develop an integrated case-tracking system to manage international child
abduction cases and undertake studies to improve compliance with the Hague
Convention. Although some progress has been made in these areas, their plans
lack the details necessary for effective implementation. For example, State
and Justice have not developed a clear strategy or plan that defines
measurable goals, objectives, and resources required to fully implement
their planned actions.
To remedy the continuing problems we identified, we are recommending that
the State and Justice Departments jointly develop a more detailed action
plan for implementing their proposed actions. Such a plan would include
measurable goals, detailed objectives, milestones for completion, and
required resources. The plan should also include a mechanism for
periodically assessing the effectiveness of the federal response to
problems.
When international parental child abduction occurs, left-behind parents can
seek the help of the federal government in two ways: (1) through a civil
process as part of an international effort to gain access to or the return
of the abducted child and (2) through a criminal process to bring the
abducting parent to justice. The State Department's Office of Children's
Issues is responsible for helping left-behind parents locate and visit their
abducted children and for reporting on their general welfare. The Department
is also responsible for providing left-behind parents with a point of
contact to provide information on the status of judicial and administrative
proceedings in other countries and to make contacts on behalf of left-behind
parents with local officials in foreign countries. Most cases are handled
under civil procedures established by the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil
Aspects of International Child Abduction, which covers 54 countries. See
appendix I for a list of the participating countries.
The international environment in which the State and Justice Departments
must operate is complex because their ability to be proactive can be at the
discretion of the abductor's government. Even though these governments may
be signatories to an international convention, some countries do not
recognize parental abduction as a crime and are therefore slow to, or do not
pursue, an abducted child or abducting parent. For countries that are not
signatories to the Hague Convention, obtaining their cooperation can be even
more difficult.
Under the Hague Convention, each participating country identifies a lead
government agency (called a "central authority") to serve as a central point
of contact. The State Department is the central authority for the United
States. For abductions to countries that do not participate in the Hague
Convention, State and left-behind parents must tailor their approach to each
country. Table 1 contains data on the State Department's caseload. At our
request, the State Department provided us caseload information for May 1997
through December 1999. The information reported includes cases opened prior
to May 1997 (when State's current data system became operational).
Table 1: Cases of Parents' Abduction or Retention of Children From the
United States (May 1997 through Dec. 1999)
Cases processed Cases where Hague
Number of Cases under Convention Total
Hague Convention does not apply
Opened 1,388 959 2,347
Closed 893 306 1,199
Child returned 382 121 503
Left-behind parent
granted access 44 6 50
Closed for other reasons 467a 179a 646
Pending 495 653 1,148
a Cases were closed for a variety of reasons, including withdrawal by
left-behind parents, judicial refusal to hear cases, children's age over 16
for Hague cases and 18 for non-Hague cases and the inability to find the
child.
Source: Department of State.
As noted in table 1, about 50 percent of the cases have been closed. Less
than half of the closed cases resulted in the children being returned or the
left-behind parent being granted access to the child. Thus, left-behind
parents succeeded in visiting their children or in having them returned in
only about 24 percent of all cases opened during the period of analysis.
At the federal level, the Justice Department, including the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, is the agency responsible for pursuing federal criminal
charges against abducting parents. Likewise, all 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and the territories recognize the abduction of a child by a parent
as a serious crime, subject to penalties exceeding 1 year in prison.
Left-behind parents generally contact local law enforcement agencies as a
first step when their children are abducted. They are instructed to file a
missing person report with the local police department and to request that
the abducted child's name and description be entered into the "missing
person" section of the National Crime Information Center7 computer. State
and local prosecutors may be involved in the investigation and prosecution
of international parental abduction cases. Table 2 provides an historical
summary of cases brought under the act.
Table 2: Justice Department Actions Under the 1993 International Parental
Kidnapping Crime Act (Fiscal years 1994-99)
Fiscal year
Action 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999a Total
Federal Bureau of Investigation
cases openedb 20 42 68 65 98 38 331
U.S. Attorney cases opened
against abducting parentsc 15 27 50 49 57 31 229
Abducting parents indicted 5 7 11 12 16 11 62
Abducting parents convicted 0 1 5 2 4 1 13
a First two quarters of fiscal year 1999.
b Cases involving international parental child abductions brought under the
1993 act (18 U.S.C. 1204) exclusively. Data on the number of state cases is
not available and not included in table 2.
c Cases opened following preliminary investigation by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
Sources: Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Executive Office for U.S.
Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, July 1999.
Over the past several years, many left-behind parents have criticized the
federal government's performance in responding to international parental
child abductions. They maintain that the federal government's response has
been uncoordinated, insensitive, and ineffective. To address parents'
concerns and the difficulties of operating in a complex international
environment, the Attorney General and the Secretary of State created the
Policy Group on International Parental Kidnapping8 in November 1998 to
identify ways to improve the federal response to international parental
child abduction.
Parental Child Abduction
During our review of information provided by the State and Justice
Departments, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and
left-behind parents, we identified many problems and issues regarding the
federal government's response to international parental child abduction.
These problems and issues include
� the need for more systematic and aggressive diplomatic efforts to improve
international responses to parental child abductions, particularly in
countries that do not comply with their Hague Convention obligations;
� gaps in federal services to left-behind parents, which make it difficult
for parents to recover their abducted children;
� limited experience of and training for judges and other court officials in
child custody matters involving parents of different national citizenship;
� limited experience, of and training for, U.S. local and federal law
enforcement personnel about when and how to use the Justice Department's
National Crime Information Center (a database with information on crimes and
individuals related to the crimes) to interrupt abductions in progress; and
� weaknesses in the State Department's case-tracking process, which impair
case and program coordination.
In addition, left-behind parents have raised an issue about the limited use
of the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993 to pursue
abducting parents and bring them to justice. Collectively, these problems
and issues related to the federal response to international parental child
abduction create obstacles to locating, accessing, and returning abducted
children. They also affect the ability to prevent and interrupt abductions.
International Responses to Parental Child Abductions
The State Department has recognized that more systematic and aggressive
action is needed to press countries to adhere to the Hague Convention. The
April 1999 report by State and Justice recognized the importance of using
diplomatic efforts to effect the return of abducted children and noted that
more initiatives are needed to be implemented in this area. Others have
recognized the need for diplomatic efforts to address the unresponsiveness
of signatories to the Hague Convention. For example, the American Bar
Association concluded in a draft 1998 report that the lack of uniformity in
the application of the Hague Convention across countries raises serious
questions about the Convention's efficacy as a multilateral treaty. The
State Department's May 1999 report to the Congress9 on the issue of
compliance with Hague Convention identified Austria, Honduras, Mauritius,
Mexico, and Sweden as the most serious violators. According to that report,
in some cases, these countries have disregarded their obligations to take
appropriate measures to discover the whereabouts of abducted children.10 In
others, their judicial systems have interpreted the Convention in a manner
that the State Department believes undermines the Convention's basic goal of
ensuring the prompt return of children to their habitual residence. For
example, article 13b allows a signatory to refuse to return a child if "his
or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or
otherwise place the child in an intolerable position." Some foreign courts
have asserted that taking a child from an abducting parent implicates this
provision. Especially if the trend of foreign countries not adhering to
their Hague Convention commitments continues, expanded diplomatic efforts to
resolve international parental abduction are necessary.
Left-behind parents have criticized State for not pursuing diplomatic
initiatives more vigorously with these and other countries to improve their
response to international parental abductions. The State Department's
position is that the return of these children is a high priority but that
the Department has to deal with foreign governments and judicial systems
that make it difficult if not at times impossible to acquire the abducted
children. Also, the draft American Bar Association report recommended that
State be more willing to use diplomatic pressure to resolve abduction cases
in non-Hague cases and in Hague cases in countries from which few children
are returned. The State Department acknowledges that it needs to take a more
proactive role in promoting greater compliance with the Hague Convention.
Left-Behind Parents Has Gaps
Left-behind parents have criticized the State Department for not providing a
single, central point of contact for information and guidance on how to
respond to abductions of their children. They also cited as problems limited
U.S. government-provided financial assistance and counseling services and
infrequent and inconsistent communication with State Department officials
managing their cases. The State Department has recognized gaps in services
to left-behind parents as a problem that needs to be addressed.
The lack of a single, central point of contact within the federal government
makes it difficult for left-behind parents to obtain complete information on
and to monitor the status of their cases. For example, although the State
Department's Office of Children's Issues can apprise left-behind parents on
the status of their civil cases, the office usually does not have
information on the status of the criminal aspects of these cases where the
Justice Department or state prosecutor is pursuing criminal penalties.
Parents have to obtain this information from the Justice Department.
Currently, neither the State nor Justice Departments provide sufficient
financial assistance to offset left-behind parents' costs, unlike some other
Hague countries. Securing the return of abducted children can entail
significant expenses. For example, left-behind parents usually need to
travel abroad, retain a lawyer, and pay other fees. According to a draft
1998 American Bar Association study, left-behind parents spent, on average,
$33,500 in the search and recovery of their children. One U.S. left-behind
parent told us he spent over $200,000 pursuing his abducted child, while the
abducting parent's costs were paid in full by her government.
Some countries--Germany and Austria, for example--require that Hague
applications for accessing or returning abducted children be filed in their
native language along with supporting documentation. In these cases,
left-behind parents may be required to pay for translation services. These
costs are beyond parents' means. Moreover, left-behind parents and siblings
may need psychological counseling services, but the federal government has
not traditionally provided financial assistance for counseling. Without
financial and other assistance, U.S. left-behind parents often find
themselves pursuing their children at a financial disadvantage, which can
make a substantial difference in their success.
Limited staffing at State's Office of Children's Issues has adversely
affected the staff's ability to keep parents informed about the status of
their cases, according to office staff. During most of fiscal year 1999,
each caseworker handled an average caseload of about 150 cases. Ideally,
according to social work experts, a caseworker handles 35 cases. Although
the Office of Children's Issues does not have a specific written requirement
regarding the frequency of contact with left-behind parents, parents should
be contacted once a month on Hague Convention cases and every
4 to 6 months on non-Hague cases, according to the Office's Deputy Director.
Office staff said they were generally unable to make such frequent contacts,
resulting in frustration among left-behind parents. The State Department has
not maintained records of how often parents have been contacted.
State and Justice identified some problems that affect the ability of U.S.
courts and law enforcement officials to prevent and interrupt abductions.
According to the State and Justice Departments' April 1999 report,
attorneys, judges, and officials at all levels of government who deal with
family law and custody matters have little or no experience or training
regarding international custody issues. Consequently, according to a Justice
Department official, they may not be aware of the potential flight risk and
the means for preventing the abduction. For example, when a judge suspects
that one parent may abduct the child, reference to the 1993 International
Parental Kidnapping Crime Act can be included in the custody order to deter
the abduction.
The April 1999 report also stated that both federal and local law
enforcement officials lack training to know when and how to use the National
Crime Information Center's computerized police information system to stop
abductions in progress. The report indicated that information about the
abducted child might not be entered into the system to alert law enforcement
in time to stop an abduction. It also indicated that information on the
abducted child might be removed prematurely before the child is returned.11
Although several agencies may be involved in international parental child
abduction cases, the federal government does not have a comprehensive
information system to track agency activities or ensure that these agencies
are taking all appropriate measures. The State Department and the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children have separate databases that track
international parental abduction cases. A Justice Department database tracks
criminal cases brought against child-abducting parents. These databases are
not integrated and use different criteria to categorize cases, actions, and
results. As a consequence, the incidence of abduction cases, agency actions
on those cases, and their results cannot be quickly or easily determined
across agencies.
The lack of an integrated, comprehensive database has also led to program
management problems such as duplication of effort between agencies. For
example, a caseworker in the State Department's Office of Children's Issues
made inquiries to a foreign central authority on one case only to find that
the Federal Bureau of Investigation had located the child and closed its
case a month earlier. This caseworker also told us that his office and the
Bureau often make duplicate inquiries to foreign central authorities on the
same case. In addition, State's case-tracking process cannot provide
information on all reasons why cases are closed, nor does a closed case mean
that an abducted child was visited by the left-behind parent or returned.
Consequently, the effectiveness of federal efforts is difficult to evaluate.
According to the Policy Group on International Parental Kidnapping, the
Office of Children's Issues lacks data to determine where best to allocate
resources or identify the elements of successfully resolved cases.
Limited
The International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act makes parental abduction a
federal felony. Since 1993, the Justice Department has indicted 62 parents
under the act.12 As a result of these indictments, 13 parents have been
convicted. Decisions to bring cases under the act rest with each of the 93
independent U.S. attorney's offices. The assistant U.S. attorneys with whom
we spoke (in Maryland, Virginia, and California) cited a number of reasons
to explain their limited use of the act. We also interviewed a California
Supervising Deputy Attorney General and officials from three district
attorney's offices. California has one of the highest international parental
abduction rates in the country, and many have felt the state has a model
program. Some prosecutors indicated that as a general policy they will not
indict abducting parents until civil remedies are exhausted under the Hague
Convention. They cited congressional intent that the procedures under the
Hague Convention should be the option of first choice for a parent who seeks
the return of a child.13 Other prosecutors noted that prosecuting abducting
parents can compromise efforts under the Hague civil process to return a
child, since some Hague countries have asserted their unwillingness to
continue pursuing civil remedies if criminal charges are pending against its
citizens.14
Assistant U.S. attorneys believe they can also provide significant federal
assistance to left-behind parents by supporting state-level prosecutors in
their pursuit of international parental abductors rather than by supporting
cases under the act. State-level prosecutors who have already investigated
and indicted a parental abductor under state law can request from an
assistant U.S. attorney a federal arrest warrant when the abductor
unlawfully crosses state or international borders to avoid prosecution under
state law.15 By obtaining a federal warrant, state-level prosecutors can
bring federal resources to bear against the abducting parent. For example,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation can help state-level law enforcement
officers locate abductors, and federal prosecutors can request that the
State Department deny or revoke an abductor's passport to prevent departure.
Also, federal warrants can be used to invoke International Police (INTERPOL)
notices to seek abductors wanted for extradition.16
Even with these mechanisms, however, Justice Department officials told us
that many countries, including several Hague signatories, do not consider
parental child abduction to be a criminal offense as the United States does
and thus do not consider international parental abduction to be an
extraditable offense. Moreover, even if a foreign country deems parental
abduction a criminal offense, it often will not be willing to extradite its
own nationals.
According to Justice Department officials, one purpose of the act is to seek
to prosecute abducting parents, an action that does not guarantee the return
of the child.17 They argue that even if the abductor is extradited to the
United States, the child might remain in the abductor's home country with
the abductor's family or friends. The law does not require the return of the
child. Consequently, they take a case-by-case approach to deciding whether
to prosecute. In this regard, however, they were unable to provide us with
information on how many abducted children have been returned because the
Justice Department does not maintain such statistics.
Left-behind parents believe Justice has not made sufficient use of the
federal criminal law to prosecute parents who abduct children from the
United States. They believe that wider application of the act would serve as
an effective mechanism for deterring international parental child
abductions.
Objectives, and Resource Commitments
Based upon the April 1999 report to the Attorney General, State and Justice
have identified several actions that they believe will improve the federal
response to international parental child abduction. Our analysis shows that
some of these actions have already been taken. However, most of the actions
have not been implemented, and many are not clearly defined. In addition,
State and Justice have no clear commitment to taking action as would be
evidenced by an implementation strategy that outlines measurable goals,
objectives, time frames, and the level of resources required to achieve the
goals.
To correct problems identified in the April 1999 report to the Attorney
General, table 3 provides a summary of proposed actions State and Justice
plan to take to improve the federal response to international parental child
abduction over the next 3 years.
Table 3: Proposed Actions to Improve the Federal Response to International
Parental Child Abduction
Continued
Problem Proposed State and Justice Department
actions
State is reviewing systemic Hague
implementation problems and is
encouraging appropriate countries to
join the Convention.
For fiscal years 2000-2003, State
plans to:
develop policies and protocols to
standardize diplomatic approaches by
Noncompliance with Hague State's overseas consular officers who
Convention, including handle parental abduction cases;
consult with Canada, a country that
shares concerns of the United States,
lack of systematic and aggressive on developing ways to improve Hague
diplomatic efforts to improve implementation in other countries;
international access and
undertake a legal study to identify
limited parental access to children ways to enforce civil court orders
abducted to other countries. among Convention participants;
organize an international conference
to improve implementation of the
Convention;
seek mechanisms to provide greater
parental access to abducted children
at the next Convention implementation
review conference;
share information with other countries
to foster return of children; and
explore other initiatives to improve
parental access.
State, Justice, and the National
Center for Missing and Exploited
Children have updated their agreement
to expand the Center's role. State is
Gaps in services to left-behind also increasing staff in the Office of
parents, including Children's Issues to reduce caseload.
Other ongoing State efforts include
encouraging, promoting, or supporting
limited financial assistance to
help them locate, gain access to, increased state-level victim
and secure the return of their assistance in abduction cases,
children and
development of support services for
infrequent contact with Office of parents,
Children's Issues caseworkers.
expanded access to legal services for
all left-behind parents, and
development of a mediation program to
foster voluntary return of child.
To increase domestic education and
training efforts, State and Justice
are cataloging information about
custody disputes and Justice is
coordinating the development and
drafting training materials. The
Justice Department's Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, federal, state, and local
law enforcement agencies, and the
Gaps in education and prevention National Center for Missing and
initiatives, including Exploited Children plan to complete
developing guides for law enforcement
officials and left-behind parents by
spring and summer 2000, respectively.
limited education, training, and
other assistance for U.S. judicial
officials;
To strengthen mechanisms to prevent
weaknesses in passport issuance and departure, State is considering
revocation practices; and targeted education efforts and an
expansion of passport-related
limited use of the National Crime measures. During fiscal year 2000 and
Information Center and 2001, it plans to create procedures to
International Police (INTERPOL) for notify foreign embassies of passport
prevention of abductions. lookouts, pursue passport revocation
for minors, and develop a media
campaign to raise awareness about
international parental child
abduction.
Justice is providing training to local
law enforcement agencies to use the
National Crime Information Center and
INTERPOL.
State has compiled requirements from
Justice, the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children and
other agencies to be compiled in a
database system. State plans to test a
pilot version of the system in
May-June 2000 and implement the final
system by July-August 2000.
Lack of an integrated database and
lack of coordinated federal
response, including Fiscal year 2001 initiatives of other
agencies include:
weaknesses within the existing
State Department case-tracking A Federal Bureau of Investigation
process; proposal to retain information on
abducted children in the National
lack of comprehensive, integrated Crime Information Center database to
process for gathering and analyzing facilitate foreign apprehension of the
data on individual cases; abductor and return of the child and
lack of a central point of contact Justice encouragement of state and
to inform left-behind parents of local clearinghouses for information
all aspects of their cases; and on missing children located throughout
the country to disseminate abduction
no framework for ensuring that all information and use new case- tracking
appropriate measures are taken by system.
all appropriate agencies in any
given case.
To strengthen coordination, State and
Justice have established an
interagency working group and a Policy
Group on International Parental
Kidnapping. The group will use
information from the case-tracking
system, once implemented, to decide
how to allocate resources among
competing program activities.
Use of federal criminal
prosecutions under the 1993 No action planned because the Justice
International Parental Kidnapping Department believes that current use
Crime Act of the act is appropriate.
Source: GAO summary based on data provided by State and Justice Departments.
The State and Justice Departments have made some progress in implementing
diplomatic initiatives, improving services to left-behind parents, and
designing an integrated case-tracking system. For example, the State
Department has pursued some diplomatic initiatives with a few countries that
have not fully complied with the Hague Convention. In this regard, the U.S.
ambassadors have met with officials from Sweden and Austria to promote
greater compliance with the Convention. In addition, the State Department
prepared diplomatic protocols for consular officers to use in promoting a
more systematic approach to resolving compliance problems.
State is improving caseworker services to left-behind parents through staff
increases. The Office of Children's Issues staff has increased from 11 to 23
in the past 16 months to reduce the caseload burden from 150 cases per
officer to about 80 per officer and increase caseworker contact with
left-behind parents. In addition, State hired a case coordinator to improve
the Office's coordination with the National Center for Missing and
Exploited. State and Justice have signed a cooperative agreement with the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, although the center's
role has yet to be completely determined. This cooperative agreement seeks
to enhance the center's role in assisting U.S. left-behind parents,
including the center serving as a central point of contact and identifying
foreign-based attorneys who can assist the parents. The National Center is
working on the issue of identifying services for left-behind parents,
including counseling services.
The Justice Department, through its Office of Victims of Crime in
conjunction with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
has established a program to make funds available to parents who qualify in
covering the costs of transporting children home once located. In addition,
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention funds "TEAM HOPE,"
which is a support and mentoring program for parents who are the victims of
child abduction. Through this initiative, trained parent volunteers are
teamed with newly victimized parents and families to offer support, advice,
and suggestions on how to cope with the situation and where to turn for
help. Justice has also begun to develop guides for law enforcement officials
and parents.
Both the State and Justice Departments have acknowledged the need for an
integrated child abduction case-tracking system to improve interagency
coordination. State's Office of Children's Issues has taken the lead to
develop this system. A needs assessment and initial design have been
completed. Testing of a pilot version of the system is planned for
July-August 2000.
Plan
Although State and Justice have made some progress, most actions they have
identified as necessary to improve the federal response have not been
implemented, and many of these steps are not clearly defined. Moreover,
these agencies lack a clear plan for implementing their proposed
initiatives. According to best practices for achieving greater efficiency,
effectiveness, and accountability in federal spending, such as those
mandated for federal agencies by the Government Performance and Results Act
of 1993,18 plans should be developed that describe how goals and objectives
are to be achieved. They should also identify key external factors beyond
the agency's control that could affect achievement of the goals and
objectives, describe how the program will be evaluated, and establish a
schedule for future program evaluations. State and Justice have identified a
number of initiatives to address problems, but they have not developed a
plan for their implementation.
Many initiatives proposed by State and Justice involve further study of
issues, with no specific actions identified to correct recognized problems.
For example, as part of State's diplomatic initiatives, State proposes to
study the enforcement of civil orders and explore initiatives to provide
left-behind parents with greater access to abducted children while civil or
legal actions are being pursued. However, the Department has not made a
commitment to address the problem. In addition, State has not indicated what
specific actions it plans to take with countries that do not comply with the
Hague Convention. The lack of specificity in this area will make it
difficult to judge any real progress in improving implementation of Hague
agreements.
State and Justice indicated that most proposed actions to improve
interagency coordination, diplomatic efforts, and mechanisms to prevent
abductions will not be completed until the end of fiscal year 2000. However,
some steps, such as systematically sharing information with other Hague
Convention countries to foster the return of abducted children, will not be
completed until the end of fiscal year 2001 or 2002.
Finally, State and Justice officials have indicated that several of the
proposed actions are subject to the availability of resources. State and
Justice officials stated that they have assessed the resources needed to
carry out proposed changes and that funding these initiatives is a high
priority. However, State and Justice do not indicate how much the
initiatives will cost and whether funds have been budgeted.
According to the State Department, they have successfully secured the return
of or parents' access to about 24 percent of the children abducted and
wrongfully detained from the United States since May 1997. Many children
remain abroad, and their left-behind parents seek the assistance of the
State and Justice Departments to locate, gain access to, and return these
children. Without a more aggressive and systematic diplomatic approach to
countries where Hague Convention implementation regarding U.S. children is a
problem, the return of these children may not be realized. Both Departments
acknowledge that weaknesses in the federal response create obstacles for
U.S. left-behind parents seeking to have their children returned. Even
though these problems are long-standing, the State and Justice Departments
have only recently taken steps to correct them and identified additional
actions that need to be taken. However, we question whether these actions
will be implemented because the State and Justice Departments have no
comprehensive plan for moving forward on their actions. The development of
such a plan would help ensure effective implementation of their proposed
actions.
We recommend that the Secretary of State and the Attorney General develop an
implementation plan, with measurable goals, objectives, time frames, and
resources, needed to address problems with the federal response to
international parental child abduction. In developing this plan, the State
and Justice Departments should include provisions for monitoring the
effectiveness of the initiatives as they are implemented.
The Departments of State and Justice provided written comments on a draft of
this report. These are reprinted in appendixes II and III. State and Justice
also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
State commented that it is committed to making improvements in its response
to international parental child abduction and that this issue would be a top
priority in allocating Department resources. Justice stated that the draft
report should more fully address the actions that have been taken by the
State and Justice Departments to improve responses for left-behind parents.
Both State and Justice provided several examples of improvements that are
underway or planned such as increasing staffing, developing a case-tracking
system, improving counseling services and other assistance to left-behind
parents, and working more closely with state governments. State disagreed
with our conclusion that State and Justice lack a sufficient plan with
measurable goals, objectives, and time frames to improve the federal
response to international child abduction. They believe that they have such
a plan.
We revised our report to include additional information on State and Justice
actions to improve federal responsiveness. However, we disagree that State
and Justice have a sufficient plan to improve the federal response to
international parental child abduction. The plan referred to by State
consists primarily of a four-page table listing a brief set of tasks to be
performed and a projected deadline for completing each task. While the
document identifies tasks related to the recommendations in State and
Justice's April 1999 report, it does not contain measurable goals and
objectives, and many of the projected deadlines depend on resource
commitments that are not discussed in the plan. In addition, as our report
notes, many of the tasks, such as diplomatic initiatives that require
further study, are general in nature and lack details on how they will be
implemented. The plan does not identify key external factors that could
affect the achievement of objectives. It also does not describe how or when
progress will be evaluated. Therefore, we continue to believe that State and
Justice should develop a more detailed plan.
Justice also noted that the draft report did not provide sufficient
discussion of the complexities of securing the return of abducted children.
Moreover, State noted that gaps in federal government services are not the
key obstacles in obtaining the return of such children. In response to these
comments, we added information to our report on the international
environment related to international parental child abduction and the
complexities of federal efforts to secure children's return.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees.
We are also sending copies to the Honorable Madeleine Albright, Secretary of
State and the Honorable Janet Reno, Attorney General. We will also make
copies available to others upon request.
Please contact me at (202) 512-4128 if you or your staff have any questions
about this report. Other GAO contact and staff acknowledgments are listed in
appendix IV.
Sincerely yours,
Jess T. Ford
Associate Director
International Relations and Trade Issues
Party Countries With the United States to the Hague Convention
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Bahamas
Belgium
Belize
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Burkina Faso
Canada
Chile
China (Hong Kong)
Colombia
Croatia
Czech Republic
Cyprus
Denmark
Ecuador
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Mauritius
Mexico
Monaco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Panama
Poland
Portugal
Macau
Romania
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
St. Kitts and Nevis
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Bermuda
Cayman Islands
Falkland Islands
Isle of Man
Montserrat
Venezuela
Zimbabwe
Comments From the Department of State
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of State's letter dated
February 29, 2000.
1. We believe transparency and accountability should be essential elements
of the State Department's strategy for improving its responsiveness to
international parental child abduction. While the joint plan is progress
toward this end, we disagree that the plan provides a sufficient basis for
substantial improvements. This four-page plan outlines general tasks State
and Justice plan to complete within broadly projected time frames. It does
not, however, include measurable goals, clear objectives, specific time
frames, and resource commitments. Our report identified several other
omissions, including the plan's failure to identify key external factors
beyond State's control that could affect the achievement of its goals and
objectives. It also fails to describe how the program will be evaluated and
to establish a schedule for future program evaluations. Because the current
plan lacks these elements, we recommend in our report that State and Justice
prepare an implementation plan that includes among other things provisions
for monitoring the effectiveness of their initiatives as they are
implemented.
2. We have revised our report and replaced "makes(s) it difficult" with
"creates obstacles," which is consistent with the results of our review.
3. In several places, our report recognizes State's efforts to improve its
management of international parental child abduction cases. It should be
noted, however, that the Congress directed the Office of Children's Issues
in the fiscal year 2000 to reduce its child abduction caseload to 75 cases
per caseworker.
4. We recognize the impact the new computerized case management tracking
system is expected to have on data management and interagency coordination.
We have revised our report to include the May-June 2000 testing of the pilot
version of the system and the
July-August 2000 system readiness.
5. Based on recommendations from State, Justice, and the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children, we met with State of California authorities
to obtain their perspectives about improving governmental responsiveness to
international parental child abduction. Because the scope of our request was
confined to problems with federal, rather than state, responsiveness, we did
not review each of the 50 states' programs. As a result, we cannot conclude
whether other states should adopt the California model or whether they would
benefit from a process unique to the State of California.
6. The example in our report was an illustration of the cost left-behind
parents could incur. While we do not know whether all abducting parents
obtain financial support to cover their legal and other fees, some evidence
exists that many do. For example, the American Bar Association has concluded
that many countries pay for the support of an abducting parent's efforts to
retain custody. Whether to provide funding to left-behind parents and under
what circumstances is a policy decision which the State Department, not GAO,
should make.
7. We acknowledge that the American Bar Association report is in draft.
However, we discussed the content of the report with its author and a
Justice Department official who sponsored the study. They agreed with how we
cite information from their study in our report.
Comments From the Department of Justice
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Justice's letter dated
February 25, 2000.
1. We have revised our report to reflect the complexities of responding to
international parental child abduction cases.
2. In several places, our report recognizes Justice's efforts to enhance its
support to left-behind parents.
3. We have revised our report to reflect this information.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
Boris L. Kachura, (202) 512-3161
In addition to the contact named above, Michael C. Zola, La Verne G.
Tharpes, Mark B. Dowling, and Rona H. Mendelsohn made key contributions to
this report.
(711423)
Table 1: Cases of Parents' Abduction or Retention of Children From
the United States (May 1997 through Dec. 1999) 7
Table 2: Justice Department Actions Under the 1993 International
Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (Fiscal years 1994-99) 8
Table 3: Proposed Actions to Improve the Federal Response to International
Parental Child Abduction 17
1. The actual number of cases may be greater because some parents never
report the abductions to the State Department but instead pursue a remedy
directly with foreign authorities.
2. 29 ILM 1501 (1980).
3. The Hague Convention seeks to ensure that child custody disputes will be
resolved in the country of the child's habitual residence.
4. 18 U.S.C. 1204.
5. In October 1999, the House International Relations Committee held
hearings on parental kidnapping at which GAO, the State and Justice
Departments, and left-behind parents testified. See our testimony Foreign
Affairs: Federal Response to International Parental Child Abductions
(GAO/T-NSIAD-00-44, Oct. 14, 1999) for more details.
6. The State of California Supervising Deputy Attorney General and officials
from three district attorneys' offices provided information on the
California model for managing child abduction cases under both federal and
state law.
7. The National Crime Information Center is a U.S. nationwide police
information system managed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Data on
missing children is located in the Missing Persons Field.
8. The Policy Group on International Parental Kidnapping comprises
high-level representatives of the State and Justice Departments and seeks to
expedite reforms in the federal response. The interagency working group,
formed by the policy group and chaired by the State Department's Office of
Children's Issues carries out the tasks identified by the policy group. The
Subcommittee on International Child Abduction is part of the Federal Agency
Task Force on Missing and Exploited Children formed by the Attorney General
in 1995 and is chaired by the Office of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
9. Report on Compliance With the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction (Washington, D.C.: Department of State, May
1999).
10. The Hague Convention requires signatories to establish a "central
authority" to (1) take appropriate measures to discover the abducted child's
whereabouts; (2) prevent further harm to the child or prejudice to
interested parties; (3) secure the voluntary return of the child or to bring
about an amicable resolution of the issues, and if necessary, (4) initiate
or facilitate the institution of judicial or administrative proceedings with
a view toward obtaining the return of the child.
11. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is addressing the issue of retaining
a child's name in the National Crime Information Center database when the
child has been located but not yet returned. The Advisory Policy Board of
the National Crime Information Center is considering the issue and is
expected to make a final decision by the summer 2000.
12. As of April 30, 1999.
13. Public Law 103-173.
14. According to a draft American Bar Association 1998 report, four central
government authorities reported that some judges in their country will not
order a child's return if criminal charges are outstanding against its
citizen parent.
15. The 1980 Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (P.L. 96-611) expressly
declares that the Fugitive Felon Act (18 U.S.C. 1073) applies to state
felony cases involving parental kidnapping.
16. State arrest warrants can also invoke INTERPOL notices.
17. In at least one case, a federal judge conditioned an abductor's sentence
on the return of the child. The judge's sentence was upheld on appeal. See
U.S. v. Amer, 110 F.3d 873 (2d Cir. 1997).
18. Public Law 103-62 (1993).
*** End of document. ***