Passports USA.com

Department of State Logo and United State Flag
Latest Islamic Terrorist Threats Contact Us text

2005 Hague Compliance Attachment A


REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION
 
List by country of applications for the return of children submitted to the Central Authority for the United States that remained unresolved more than 18 months after date of filing.
 
The following acronyms are used throughout:
 
CI - Office of Children’s Issues, part of Overseas Citizen Services of the Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State.  Acts as the U.S. Central Authority.
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, in addition to the actions described in the case summaries below, the U.S. Department of State and our overseas Embassies and Consulates (“posts”) maintain frequent and ongoing conversations and meetings with left-behind parents.

COLOMBIA CASE 1
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: July 20, 2002
Date Hague application filed: November 29, 2002
Have children been located? Yes
 
On July 20, 2002, TP abducted the children to Colombia.  The LBP filed Hague applications for their return on November 29, 2002.  This case has been languishing in the Colombian courts since that time.  The most recent hearing was scheduled to take place on November 14, 2004, but as of the time of writing of this report, the Colombian CA had not reported the outcome of the hearing to CI, despite multiple requests for information.
 
In March 2004, U.S. Ambassador Wood discussed abduction issues with Colombia’s President Uribe.  U.S. Embassy officials regularly meet with Colombian authorities to urge resolution of outstanding cases and to promote speedier, improved Hague case procedures.
 
COLOMBIA CASE 2
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: August 23, 1998
Date Hague application filed: March 11, 1999
Has child been located? Yes
 
This case has been in litigation for years.  The child was ordered returned in March 2000, but the decision was reversed in October 2000, upon appeal.  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 six diplomatic notes, urging the case’s swift completion in compliance with Colombian commitments under the Hague Convention.  In August 2003, a diplomatic note was forwarded to the Colombian CA seeking assistance in gaining consular access to the child. To date, there has been no consular access to the child.
 
In March 2004, U.S. Ambassador Wood discussed abduction issues with Colombia’s President Uribe.  Six diplomatic notes have been sent to the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the case since February 2001.  U.S. Embassy officials regularly meet with Colombian authorities to urge resolution of outstanding cases and to promote speedier, improved Hague case procedures.
 
CROATIA
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: September 6, 2002
Date Hague application filed: December 5, 2002
Has child been located? Yes
 
In May of 2003, a Croatian court ordered the child to return; the TP appealed.  The appeals court upheld the appeal and remanded the case to the lower court for correction.  Case underwent lengthy delays from this point.  In August 2004, the lower court closed hearings.  In November 2004, the court (once again) decided to return the child.  Although we are concerned with the length of time that it took to draft the final order, it is apparent that thorough research was done to ensure the decision followed the intent of the Convention.  Although the return order was handed down before the beginning of December 2004, the TP evaded service of the decision until December 29, 2004 and submitted an appeal on January 12, 2005 (the last day of the appeal window).  Enforcement cannot be effected until this second appeal is decided.  Given the history of delay in this case, concern remains regarding the passage of time, the TP's attempts to evade service, and potential problems with enforcement if/when the appeals court rules in favor of the LBP.
 
In May 2004, Embassy filed a protest with the Croatian Central Authority over the extent of the delays. 
 
GREECE
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: February 15, 2002
Date Hague application filed: June 21, 2002
Has child been located? Yes
 
TP took child to Greece without LBP’s knowledge in February 2002.  The Hague return hearing was held in Greece in September 2002.  After waiting five months without notification of the outcome of the hearing, CI sent a letter to the Greek CA (GCA) requesting clarification of the proceedings.  CI was then informed that the court of first instance denied the return application, and LBP requested an appeal.  For the appeal hearing, GCA requested home and psychological evaluations be done of the LBP, which were done in June 2003; the hearing took place December 4, 2003.  CI was informed Sept. 13, 2004 by LBP that the appeal was denied.  Several aspects of the Greek court’s decision raise serious concerns, such as the ease with which the courts accepted the TP’s claims of abuse without also investigating whether protective services or legal aid were available to the TP prior to abducting the child; and expansive interpretation of the Article 13 (b) defense of creating an “unbearable situation” if the child were ordered returned.  LBP has expressed his intent to appeal to Supreme Court. 
 
Embassy officials have met several times with Greek CA to discuss this and other outstanding cases.  In February 2005, the U.S. Ambassador discussed the importance of effective Hague case processing with the Greek Minister of Justice.
 
HONDURAS
Date of abduction/retention: April 1, 1997
Date Hague application filed: May 1998
Has child been located?  Yes
 
IHFNA, the Honduran Agency for Children and Families which is responsible for handling Central Authority functions, has at no point addressed the return of this child to the United States.  At the request of the U.S. Embassy, IHFNA has conducted welfare visits with the child and reports on these visits have been provided to the LBP.  The TP, who is Honduran-American, re-entered the U.S. without the child 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 has been holding the TP in jail on contempt of court charges since July 2003 and has indicated that the TP will remain in custody until the child returns to the United States.  The Government of Honduras (GOH) is closely monitoring the TP’s U.S. civil court case.  At one hearing the GOH, through hired legal representation, submitted an Amicus Curiae brief in support of the TP’s release.  The brief stated that the GOH will not relinquish the child to the authority of the court in the U.S. and therefore the contempt charges against the TP could not have any coercive effect.  The TP also faces pending criminal charges under the International Parental Kidnapping Act.  The child remains in Honduras in the care of Honduran-American grandparents, while the TP remains in U.S. custody.
 
ISRAEL CASE 1
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: April 18, 1997
Date Hague application filed: October 6, 1997
Have children been located? No
 
On November 24, 1998, the court ordered that the children be returned to the U.S.  On January 13, 1999, after attempts to locate the TP and the children had failed, the Court issued another order instructing the police to locate the children.  Unfortunately, efforts undertaken by police also failed.  To date, neither the TP nor the children have been located.  CI has regular, ongoing contact with the LBP, U.S. law enforcement, the Israeli CA (ICA), and through the ICA, contact with foreign law enforcement.  In an effort to help the ICA and foreign law enforcement locate the TP, CI and federal law enforcement provided them with the TP's Department of Motor Vehicles photograph.  At the request of CI, the director of the ICA has had several meetings with law enforcement officials regarding their efforts to locate the children.  ICA informed CI that search efforts had been expanded, but whereabouts of the children remain unknown.
 
ISRAEL CASE 2
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: June 2, 1997
Date Hague application filed: May 5, 2002
Has child been located? Yes
 
The Israeli Central Authority (ICA) accepted the Hague application for return since the exact location of the child and TP had been confirmed.  In August 2002, at the request of an Israeli judge, LBP traveled to Israel to allow Israeli social services to do a full evaluation of the situation.  In January 2003, the judge accepted the social worker's recommendation that as part of the reunification process with the child, the LBP should come to Israel for longer periods and each visit between the LBP and child during this time would be extended.  The social worker and the court would monitor the reunification process, before making any decision concerning travel to the United States.  Visitation in Israel between the child and LBP continues; most recent visit was in March 2004.  The LBP also telephones the child twice a week.  The LBP still wants the child returned to the U.S.  ICA has informed CI that the judge told the LBP's attorney that a mutually agreed visitation arrangement was the best solution, adding no return would be ordered unless the TP refuses to cooperate on establishing a visitation agreement.  To date, this case is still pending in court.  CI has regular, ongoing contact with the LBP.  The ICA closed their file on this case, but continues to respond to inquiries from CI.
 
MAURITIUS
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 Hague Convention entered into force between the U.S. and Mauritius (1993) but before the country’s legislative body incorporated the Convention into the domestic law of Mauritius (October 2000).  The lower court rejected the petition in 1999, ruling that the Hague Convention had not yet been incorporated into domestic law through implementing legislation.  The Mauritian Supreme Court affirmed this decision.  In October 2000, Mauritius passed legislation implementing the Hague Convention.  In light of the passage of implementing legislation, and at the prompting of CI and the U.S. Embassy, LBP’s case was refiled but again denied by the lower court on grounds that the implementing legislation had no retroactive effect.  A procedural hearing for submission of both parties' affidavits before a Supreme Court judge occurred in February 2004.  A hearing originally scheduled for October 2004 has been postponed to June 2005. 
 
The U.S. Embassy in Port Louis has been in regular contact with the LBP and the Mauritius CA (MCA), with the earliest contact having been a demarche by the Ambassador, DCM, and Pol/Conoff on the Attorney General.  In 2004 and early 2005, embassy officials met with the head of the MCA to discuss outstanding cases and press for their resolution in a manner consistent with the Convention.  In July 2004, embassy officials met with the Principal Attorney General to discuss child abduction cases.
 
MEXICO CASE 1
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: May 5, 1999
Date Hague application filed: August 28, 1999
Have children been located? No
 
This case, like several others, was filed directly with the Mexican Central Authority (MCA) by the San Diego District Attorney’s Office in California.  California officials work directly with the LBP and MCA and inform us of relevant actions in the case.  In September, 2004, the MCA informed the Embassy that they had recently referred the case to Interpol.
 
The Consul General in Mexico City met with the Mexican Attorney General’s Office to seek improved cooperation on locating parentally abducted children.  The Consular Chief holds monthly meetings with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the status of this and other unresolved cases. 
 
MEXICO CASE 2
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: February 9, 2001
Date Hague application filed: July 25, 2001
Has child been located? No
 
This case, like several others, was filed directly with the Mexican CA by the San Diego District Attorney’s Office in California.  California officials work directly with the LBP and MCA and inform us of relevant actions in the case.  The MCA referred the case to Interpol Mexico, which advised in September, 2004 that child has not been located.
 
The Consul General in Mexico City met with the Mexican Attorney General’s Office to seek improved cooperation on locating parentally abducted children.  The Consular Chief holds monthly meetings with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the status of this and other unresolved cases. 
 
MEXICO CASE 3
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: November 22, 2001
Date Hague application filed: February 6, 2002
Has child been located? No
 
LBP filed an application for return directly with the Mexican CA.  A month later LBP hired a private detective who confirmed that the child was living with the grandparents.  On April 1, 2002, a local Mexican judge ordered the child taken into protective custody pending a hearing.  In mid-April, the court, convinced the grandparents were conspiring to hide the child, authorized forcible entry to determine if the child was in the house.  The grandmother allowed the police to enter only after police begin to disassemble the lock.  The child was not located in the home and has not been located since.  The Mexican CA turned the case over to Interpol August 2002.
 
Office of Children’s Issues coordinated assistance from Embassy Mexico.  Consular and Regional Security Office Sections and Federal Bureau of Investigation Attaché assisted LBP by arranging appointments with the Mexican Central Authority, social services, and Mexican law enforcement.  Embassy Staff accompanied LBP to meetings.  Further support came from the Deputy Chief of Mission who met with the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding this case. 
 
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Maura Harty raised this case with the Mexican Government in 2003 and 2004.  The Consul General met with Mexican Attorney General’s Office to seek improved cooperation on locating parentally abducted children.  The Consular Chief holds monthly meetings with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on status of this and other unresolved cases.
 
MEXICO CASE 4
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: August 21, 2000
Date Hague application filed: August 30, 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.  TP and child traveled to Mexico for a three week visit to their family, but did not return.  LBP has not seen child since July 13, 2000.  The court has been unable to locate the child.  LBP provided updated address information over the past three years but the child still has not been located.  Mexican CA referred the case to Interpol in October 2002. 
 
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Maura Harty raised the case in the Binational Committee Meeting in November 2003 and 2004.  Embassy has followed the case up with MCA. 
 
MEXICO CASE 5
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: October 2, 2001
Date Hague application filed: July 2, 2002
Has child been located? No
 
TP took the child to Mexico City on a one-way ticket in 2001 after allegedly being threatened by spouse.  U.S. state police never opened a criminal case against LBP because no evidence was found to support TP’s claim.  In early days of the abduction, TP’s family members spoke with LBP over the telephone.  As time went on, LBP said family members became less friendly, often shouting over the telephone that they had no knowledge of the location of TP and child.  Eventually the family changed the telephone number.  Mexican CA turned the case over to Interpol, who reported in July 2004 and September 2004 that they had a possible address for the child.  They also requested an additional photograph of the child.  CI forwarded the picture but the child has not been located.
 
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Maura Harty raised this case in Binational Commission Meeting November 2003 and 2004.  Consul General met with Mexican Attorney General’s Office to request improved cooperation on locating parentally abducted children.  Consular Chief holds monthly meetings with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on status of this and other unresolved cases.
 
MEXICO CASE 6
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: January 18, 2002
Date Hague application filed: January 06, 2003
Has child been located? No
 
TP and grandparents have wrongfully retained this child in Mexico since January 2002.  While the child was on a visit at the home of LBP’s parents in Mexico, TP and TP’s mother came to the house demanding that child be turned over to them.  After a brief altercation, local police arrived to settle the dispute.  Police handed the child over to the TP, then instructed LBP and LBP’s parents to follow them to the police station. Police arrested LBP, who was released after paying a six hundred dollar fine.  Mexican CA reported in December 2003, that the judge was unable to locate the child after several visits to the home.  MCA forwarded the case to Mexican Interpol January 2004.  LBP provided updated address information and photographs of the child at the TP’s mother’s home.  Despite this concrete proof of location, the child has not been located. 
 
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Maura Harty raised this case at the Binational Commission Meetings in November 2003 and 2004.  Consul General met with Mexican Attorney General’s Office to seek improved cooperation on locating parentally abducted children.  Consular Chief holds monthly meetings with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on status of this and other unresolved cases.
 
MEXICO CASE 7
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: February 17, 2002
Date Hague application filed: June 14, 2002
Has child been located? No
 
LBP filed a Hague application directly with Mexican authorities in 2002.  A judge in the United States awarded joint custody to the parents in a 2001 divorce settlement.  Child was allowed to live temporarily in Mexico with one of the parents.  After that parent’s sudden death, the surviving parent went to Mexico to retrieve the child.  The parent was met with extreme opposition from the deceased parent’s mother, who utilized the legal system to keep the child in Mexico, including obtaining a constitutional stay (amparo).  The amparo was eventually overturned.  In the meantime, the grandmother hid the child and refused to present the child to the court.  In November 2004, the local Child Protective Services Office in Mexico informed the Embassy that the judge assigned to the case had requested the support of the Mexican federal police and intelligence agencies to locate the child.
 
The U.S. Ambassador, Deputy Chief of Mission and Assistant Secretary Secretary for Consular Affairs appealed to the Mexican Government.  Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Maura Harty raised this case at the Binational Commission Meetings in November 2003 and 2004.  Consul General met with Mexican Attorney General’s Office to seek improved cooperation on locating parentally abducted children.  Consular Chief holds monthly meetings with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on status of this and other unresolved cases.  Embassy established contact with the courts handling the case, as well as local Child Protective Services, in an effort to stimulate action on the case – so far, without result.
 
MEXICO CASE 8   
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: October 7, 2000
Date Hague application filed: May 28, 2002
Has child been located? No
 
TP allowed a consular officer to visit the child in an agreed upon place on two separate occasions, but refused to reveal where TP and child live.  Consular officer reported that TP met with the judge presiding over the case at a relative’s home in July 2003.  The Mexican CA reported to CI in July 2003 that TP no longer lived with TP’s mother and the child could not be located.  In September 2004, Interpol Mexico reported that the child had returned to the US.  Embassy has asked Interpol for confirmation.
 
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Maura Harty raised this case at the Binational Commission Meeting in November 2003 and 2004.  Consul General met with Mexican Attorney General’s Office to seek improved cooperation on locating parentally abducted children.  Consular Chief holds monthly meetings with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on status of this and other unresolved cases.  The Consulate General in Guadalajara conducted welfare visits to the child until they were no longer able to contact the TP or otherwise locate the child.  The last visit was in October 2003. 
 
MEXICO CASE 9
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: February 1999
Date Hague application filed: February 21, 2000
Has child been located? No
 
The parents of this child were granted joint custody in 1997.  TP took the child to Mexico when sole legal custody was subsequently granted to LBP.  Although there was initially no exact confirmation of the child’s location in Mexico, there was evidence that TP and child were living with an aunt.  Mexican CA forwarded the case under that assumption.  On August 1, 2001, MCA reported that the Second Family Judge in the relevant town was unable to locate the child at the given address and requested a new address.  MCA forwarded the case in May 2002 to Interpol after no new information could be provided by the LBP.  Interpol Mexico requested child’s pictures, which were provided by MCA in September, 2004.
 
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Maura Harty raised this case at the Binational Commission Meeting in November 2003 and 2004.  Consul General met with Mexican Attorney General’s Office to request improved cooperation on locating parentally abducted children.  Consular Chief holds monthly meetings with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on status of this and other unresolved cases.
 
MEXICO CASE 10  
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: February 14, 1999
Date Hague application filed: February 19, 1999
Has child been located? Yes
 
This case, like several others, was filed directly with the Mexican CA by the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office in California.  California authorities work directly with the LBP and MCA and inform CI of relevant actions in the case. 
 
The Consul General met with Mexican Attorney General’s Office to seek improved cooperation on locating parentally abducted children.  The Consular Chief holds monthly meetings with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on status of this and other unresolved cases.
 
MEXICO CASE 11
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: May 19, 1999
Date Hague application filed: July 19, 2001
Has child been located? No
 
Child was in custody of child protective services at the time of her abduction.  Non-custodial parents abducted the child to Mexico.  The case was forwarded to a presiding judge in Mexico.  After the judge was unable to locate the child, DIF, the Mexican equivalent of child protective services, also looked for the child but was unable to locate her.  Mexican CA forwarded the case to Mexican Interpol in May 2002.  In November 2004, the Embassy requested a case status report from the MCA.  MCA informed that case was re-sent to Mexican State Tribunal on November 6, 2004.
 
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Maura Harty raised this case at the Binational Commission Meeting in November 2003 and 2004.  Consul General met with Mexican Attorney General’s Office to seek improved cooperation on locating parentally abducted children.  Consular Chief holds monthly meetings with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on status of this and other unresolved cases. 
 
MEXICO CASE 12
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.  In early 2004, the CA informed the U.S. Embassy that a judge had been assigned the case, though no hearing has yet been scheduled.  As of December 2004, the judge has still not set a hearing date.
 
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 for Consular Affairs Maura 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: April 20, 2000
Date Hague application filed: August 9, 2002
Has child been located? Yes
 
The San Diego District Attorney’s Office filed the Hague Application and is managing the case, while informing CI of relevant actions in the case.  In September 2004, the Mexican judge hearing the case asked the San Diego DA’s office to produce and translate into Spanish all court documents regarding custody from San Diego, including trial transcripts and judge’s minutes.  On December 3, 2004, the LBP and the DA’s Office presented the required documents to the Mexican judge. She refused to accept them, saying that according to procedure, the Mexican Central Authority needed to present the documents for a Hague Case.  San Diego DA’s Office sent the documents to the Mexican CA.  The Mexican CA forwarded only some of the documents to the judge, who found the package inadequate. 
 
MEXICO CASE 14
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 TP and the two children have not been located.  In the spring of 2003, CI provided new information regarding the children's location to the CA.  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.  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 LBP applied for return of two children, the older child is now over 16 and thus falls outside the scope of the application. On November 8, 2004, CI asked LBP to provide additional information on children’s possible location.
 
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.  Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Maura 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.  Consular Chief holds monthly meetings with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on status of this and other unresolved cases. 
 
MEXICO CASE 15
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 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.  CI is seeking an address that Mexican authorities can use for locating the child and her mother.
 
This case was raised 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 Maura Harty 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: 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 judge originally assigned to the case 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 in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Justice.  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.  The TP has not been arrested, but the case remains with a judge pending location of the child, even though the LBP’s contacts reported sighting the TP and child in November 2002, and the judge himself visited the presumed residence, and found a room containing the child’s belongings, but no child.  On October 28, 2004 the MCA informed our Embassy that the case was referred to Interpol. 
 
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Maura 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: June 5, 1997
Date Hague application filed: August 27, 2001
Have children been located? No
 
The Mexican CA sent the case to the family court in Mexico City in June 2002.  The case has not moved forward because the children have not been located.  CI provided the MCA with phone numbers and general locations where the children might be in July 2004.  In October the Mexican CA sent the case to Interpol to search for the children.  On December 10, 2004, the MCA informed our Embassy that a judge was assigned to this case.  However, the judge questioned whether there had, in fact, been an abduction, and requested that the LBP provide additional information, since LBP had indicated to other Mexican authorities that the family had lived in Mexico previously.  The MCA is waiting for LBP’s additional information.
 
MEXICO CASE 18
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: May 22, 2001
Date Hague application filed: November 7, 2002
Has child been located: No
 
This case was filed by the State of California Attorney General’s Office. CI received an informational copy. State of California has not provided CI with updates.
 
MEXICO CASE 19
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: July 11, 2001
Date Hague application filed: August 9, 2001
Has child been located? Not known
 
The San Diego District Attorney’s Office filed this case directly with the Mexican CA. The Office of Children’s Issues received an informational copy only.  San Diego DA’s Office told CI on December 6, 2004 that there had been no recent activity on this case.  San Diego DA’s Office is following up on the case with the MCA.
 
MEXICO CASE 20
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: March 2002
Date Hague application filed: July 26, 2002
Have children been located? No
 
The judge to whom this case was assigned ordered the children picked up and delivered to the LBP in January 2003.  However, police went to the supposed residence of the TP and found it abandoned.  The Mexican CA has asked law enforcement for assistance in locating them; these efforts have been unsuccessful.  CI spoke to the LBP’s current spouse on November 2, 2004 and asked if the LBP might make further inquiries in Mexico of their possible whereabouts.
 
MEXICO CASE 21
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: January 10, 1994
Date Hague application filed: March 9, 1999
Has child been located? No
 
The LBP, a Mexican national, forwarded the return application directly to the Mexican CA.  In November 1999, in response to a request from the Mexican Embassy for an update on the case, CI queried the Mexican CA.  In April 2000, the MCA responded that the TP had filed an amparo against an order issued for the child's return and the MCA would inform CI of the results of the appeal.  TP's amparo was eventually denied, thus allowing the return to proceed.  In early 2004, the CA reported that the child must be located in order for the return decision to be enforced.  On Sept. 1, 2004 the MCA reported that the child had been located and it would ask the judge to enforce his return order.  On October 28, 2004 the Central Authority responded to an Embassy inquiry that the case had been referred to the Child and Family Services for a legal opinion as to how to enforce the return order. 
 
The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Maura Harty 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 and again 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: October 30, 2001
Date Hague application filed: May 30, 2002
Has child been located? No
 
Case was assigned to a judge in November 2002. However, the court reported it could not locate the child at the address provided by the LBP.   The Mexican CA referred the case to Interpol, who informed our Embassy in September 2004 that they have not located the child.
 
POLAND
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: November 28, 1998
Date Hague application filed: August 4, 1999
Have children been located?  No
 
On March 28, 2001, the local Court of Justice in Poland denied the return of the two children.  The LBP appealed the decision, and on July 11, 2001, the Court of Appeals overturned the lower court decision and ordered the return of the children.  On November 9, 2001, the TP was ordered to return the children to the LBP 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 to locate the children. 
 
Ambassador Skolimowski and Assistant Secretary Maura Harty discussed this case during a meeting in Washington in September 2003.  In February 2004 and again in February 2005, Assistant Secretary Harty discussed Poland’s implementation of the Hague Convention with Polish Undersecretary of State Wolski.
 
U.S. Embassy officials in Warsaw have repeatedly brought this case to the attention of the Central Authority, the Ministry of Justice, and the head of the International Cooperation Office.  Actions include a Diplomatic note in 2001, meeting with Minister of Justice in 2002, four Diplomatic notes and a letter to the court in 2003, four diplomatic notes in 2004, and a letter in 2004 from the Consul General to MFA.
 
ROMANIA
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: July 2001
Date Hague application filed: June 20, 2002
Has child been located? Yes
 
TP took the child to Romania in May 2001 for an agreed-upon vacation and both were to have returned in July 2001.  However, in June 2001, the TP informed LBP that they would not return as planned.  LBP attempted to negotiate a voluntary arrangement with the TP over the ensuing year to no avail, and in June 2002, filed an application for the child’s return to the U.S.  On June 27, 2003, the application for return was denied on the basis that more than a year had passed between the time that the child was removed to Romania and the time that the application was heard in the Court; thus the child was resettled in Romania.  In February 2004, the Romanian CA confirmed that there was an appeal pending.  On May 21, 2004, the appeal court upheld the lower court’s ruling.  The RCA has indicated that this will be sent to Supreme Court, but has not provided any additional details.
 
SPAIN
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: April 18, 2002
Date Hague application filed: February 4, 2003
Has child been located? Yes, but then subsequently disappeared
 
The TP, in contravention of an existing U.S. court order, removed child from the U.S. to Spain.  The LBP filed a Hague application and after the child was located in Spain in July 2004, a hearing was scheduled for August 11, 2004.  The TP  disappeared with the child in advance of being served with notice of the hearing date and they are believed to be in the Canary Islands.  The Spanish authorities have yet to locate TP and child.  CI has requested updates from the Spanish Central Authority (SCA) regarding their attempts to locate the child.  The SCA has indicated that police are still searching and they will forward information pertaining to any new developments in the case.
 
U.S. Embassy officials met with the SCA to request status updates in September 2004 and in February 2005, and to inform the SCA that there was a possibility that TP and child were in the Canary Islands and to suggest that the SCA seek Interpol assistance in locating the child.