print 
email 2006 Hague Compliance Attachment A
REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION
— ATTACHMENT A —
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.
ARGENTINA
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: April 27, 2003
Date Convention application filed: April 28, 2003
Has child been located? Yes
An application for return was filed by the LBP directly with the Argentine Central Authority in April 2003. The LBP’s private attorney presented the application to the appropriate Argentine Court in October 2003. Although the Court of First Instance issued an order for the children’s return to the United States, the case has been delayed due to numerous appeals made by the TP. In addition to delays in lower court proceedings, the Argentine courts inappropriately considered criteria outside the Convention in deciding the case, including psychological examinations and home studies. At the end of the reporting period, the case was pending before the Argentine Supreme Court for a decision on whether the children’s return to the United States would violate their rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. After the end of the reporting period the Argentine Supreme Court made a final ruling for the return of the children.
In 2005 U.S. Embassy Buenos Aires delivered one demarche and two diplomatic notes about this case to the Argentine Central Authority requesting the issuance of an expeditious decision in compliance with the Convention.
AUSTRALIA CASE 1
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: August 21, 2003
Date Convention application filed: March 29, 2004
Has child been located? Yes
Following the order for return, the taking parent stated she did not have the financial resources to return the child herself. The Court would not allow the then-nine-year-old child to travel alone from Australia to the United States. The taking parent was agreeable to a pick-up by the left-behind parent. However, in spite of repeated urging by the U.S. Central Authority, the left-behind parent failed to arrange the child's return before the end of the reporting period. The LBP did maintain weekly contact with the child by telephone and, at the LBP’s request the U.S. Consulate in Sydney made a welfare visit with the now-eleven-year-old child. After the close of the reporting period the LBP traveled to Australia, and has since had several unsupervised visits with the child. The case is, however, back in the courts and the LBP plans to remain in Australia until the court action is resolved.
AUSTRALIA CASE 2
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: June 28, 2002
Date Convention application filed: February 10, 2004
Has child been located? No
The child was abducted to Norway in June 2002. In October 2002 a Convention application was filed in Norway and a Norwegian court ordered a return on February 3, 2003. Following the Norwegian Court's decision to return the child to the U.S., the taking parent and child disappeared. On January 30, 2004, the U.S. Central Authority was notified by Australian immigration authorities that the taking parent and child entered Australia on August 7, 2003 and were considered visa overstays. The Australian authorities have been searching for the taking parent and child ever since with no results. A new Convention application package was submitted on February 10, 2004 to the Australian Central Authority and a "port stop" is in place. The left-behind father has had regular contact with the U.S. Consulate and has been very involved in the search.
COLOMBIA CASE 1
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: August 23, 1998
Date Convention 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 five different courts without resolution. U.S. Embassy Bogotá and CI have approached Colombian authorities at various times on behalf of the LBP. 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. Since February 2001 six diplomatic notes have been sent to the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the case. U.S. Embassy Bogotá officials regularly meet with Colombian authorities to urge resolution of outstanding cases and to promote speedier, improved Convention case procedures.
COLOMBIA CASE 2
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: July 19, 2002
Date Convention application filed: May 30, 2003
Has child been located? Yes
The U.S. Central Authority forwarded the Convention application to the Colombian Central Authority on May 30, 2003. The LBP advised that the case is still pending before the 10 th Civil Circuit Court in Bogotá. The Court has conducted home studies with the children, but has yet to issue a decision. U.S. Embassy Bogotá officials regularly meet with Colombian authorities to urge resolution of outstanding cases and to promote speedier, improved Convention case procedures.
ECUADOR
Date of abduction/wrongful retention: May 9, 2003
Date Convention application filed: July 2, 2003
Has child been located? Yes
The U.S. Central Authority forwarded the application to the Corte Nacional de Menores in July 2003. No action was taken on the case and it was determined that the Corte Nacional de Menores was no longer acting as the Ecuadorian Central Authority. In January and July 2005, copies of the application and supporting documentation were sent to the designated temporary Ecuadorian Central Authority, yet still no action has been taken on the case.
U.S. Embassy Quito and U.S. Consulate Guayaquil urged Ecuadorian officials for the appointment of a new Central Authority. On two occasions temporary Central Authorities were designated. In January 2005, the U.S. Embassy Quito presented a copy of the application to the office designated to act temporarily as the Central Authority. In July 2005, a new office was designated to act as the Central Authority and the Consulate again presented the application with a request that the case be resolved expeditiously.
GREECE
Date of abduction/retention: July 19, 2003
Date Convention application filed: August 28, 2003
Has child been located? Yes
At the time that the TP abducted the child in July 2003, the child’s mother had recently passed away, and the TP father and maternal aunt were engaged in a custody dispute. A California court granted the aunt sole custody and she filed a Convention application for the child’s return. The Greek court denied the aunt’s Convention application for return in May 2004, but did grant her access to the child. She submitted an appeal, and the TP continues to refuse to allow the access that the Greek court ordered. After the close of the reporting period, on
October 13, 2005, an appeal hearing occurred, but neither the child’s aunt nor CI has been informed of the outcome.
HONDURAS CASE 1
Date of abduction/retention: April 1, 1997
Date Convention application filed: May 1998
Has child been located? Yes
The Instituto Hondureño de la Niñez y la Familia (IHFNA), the Honduran CA, has at no point addressed the return of this child to the United States. IHFNA has, at the request of Post, 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 United States 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 held the TP in jail on contempt of court charges and indicated that the TP would remain in custody until the child returned to the United States. The TP also faced pending criminal charges under the International Parental Kidnapping Act. The Government of Honduras (GOH) closely monitored 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 would not relinquish the child to the authority of the Court in the United States, and therefore the contempt charges against the TP could not have any coercive effect. After the reporting period, through the coordination of the U.S. Embassy Tegucilgalpa, the LBP and the TP’s attorney in the United States, the child returned to the United States in the care of her Honduran-American grandparents. The TP was released from jail, was arraigned the same day for an International Parental Kidnapping charge, and is out on bond. The child is in the temporary custody of her maternal grandparents and the TP has some visitation.
Before and during the reporting period, U.S. Embassy Tegucigalpa officials frequently engaged IHFNA and Honduran officials to encourage the ratification of the Convention and the development of a functioning Central Authority. Honduras officially ratified the Convention in January 2004 and formally designated IHFNA to act as the Central Authority in June 2005. In June 2005, U.S. Embassy Tegucigalpa organized a conference with IHFNA and a representative of the Hague Permanent Bureau to establish procedures for processing Convention cases.
HONDURAS CASE 2
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: December 1, 1998
Date Convention application filed: July 10, 2003
Has child been located? Yes
No action was taken in this case by Instituto Hondureño de la Niñez y la Familia (IHFNA), the Honduran CA, until October 2005. At that time, IHFNA indicated to the U.S. Central Authority that they will begin work to arrange a voluntary return and if not successful to file a motion in support of the application for return with the appropriate Honduran court.
HONDURAS CASE 3
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: July 8, 2003
Date Convention application filed: September 30, 2003
Has child been located? Yes
No action was taken in this case by Instituto Hondureño de la Niñez y la Familia (IHFNA), the Honduran CA, until September 2005. At that time, IHFNA assisted in initiating proceedings by presenting a motion in support of the Convention application to the appropriate Honduran court. The LBP is represented by a private attorney; however IHFNA has monitored the case and reported on developments.
ISRAEL CASE 1
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: April 18, 1997
Date Convention application filed: October 6, 1997
Have children been located? No
On November 24, 1998, the court ordered that the children be returned to the United States. 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.
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. CI maintains contact with the LBP.
ISRAEL CASE 2
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: June 2, 1997
Date Convention application filed: May 5, 2002
Has child been located? Yes
The Israeli Central Authority (ICA) accepted the Convention 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; the most recent visit occurred in summer 2005. The LBP also telephones the child regularly. 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 agrees 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, 1997
Date Convention application filed: February 3, 1999
Has child been located? Yes
This is one of two cases in Mauritius in which the applications were filed after the country became a party to the Convention (October 1993) but before the country’s legislative body incorporated the Convention into Mauritian law (October 2000). The lower court rejected the petition in 1999, ruling that the 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 which implemented the Convention. In light of the passage of implementing legislation, and at the prompting of CI and U.S. Embassy Port Louis, the LBP’s case was re-filed, but was again denied by the lower court on grounds that the implementing legislation had no retroactive effect. A procedural hearing for submission of both parents’ affidavits before a Supreme Court judge occurred in February 2004. A hearing originally scheduled for October 2004 was first continued until June 2005, continued again until July 2005, and continued a third time until October 2005. After two years of no access to the two retained children, in 2005 U.S. officials did conduct one successful visit.
After the reporting period, the Mauritius State Attorney’s Office began pursuing a resolution on behalf of the LBP based on the fact that the Government of Mauritius became a signatory and, in 1993, was accepted as such by the United States. The position of the Mauritius State Attorney’s Office is that Mauritius has should honor its obligation as a signatory. We will continue to monitor this case.
MEXICO CASE 1
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: May 2, 2003
Date Convention application filed: February 13, 2004
Has child been located? Yes
In May 2004, the LBP subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the Mexican court by taking a drug test in which no drugs were found to be present. He also paid for and provided a psychological evaluation at the judge’s request. The judge then postponed the hearing and requested a police report on the LBP. A hearing originally scheduled for June 8, 2005 was rescheduled for June 28, 2005. The LBP retained an attorney and has communicated with his child by phone. The TP’s application for return was denied, but the TP filed an appeal for review that is expected to delay the case at least four months.
MEXICO CASE 2
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: April 2002
Date Convention application filed: April 23, 2003
Has child been located? No
The original case file was lost in the mail between the court and the Mexican Central Authority (MCA) in 2003. The MCA was to certify a copy of the Convention application and send it to the tribunal in the Mexican state of Jalisco.
The case was assigned to a family court in the state of Jalisco. On March 7, 2006, the LBP’s attorney advised that the LBP could not travel to Mexico because she is an undocumented alien. A hearing was set; the LBP, however, cannot be located. The MCA and the court have offered to postpone the hearing to allow efforts to locate the LBP and notify her of the hearing date.
MEXICO CASE 3
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: November 2, 2001
Date Convention application filed: February 6, 2002
Has child been located? No
The U.S. Department of Justice requested extradition of the TP in February 2005; however the TP and the child remain in Mexico. The maternal grandmother is believed to be hiding the child. The Mexican authorities issued a provisional arrest warrant for the TP in May 2005 and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), and CI are coordinating efforts for safe recovery of the child should the TP be arrested.
Interpol Mexico is investigating school records but hasn’t been able to discover the TP’s whereabouts. On November 19, 2005, the FBI advised Interpol by letter that the TP was in Mexico, and provided an exact location. On Nov 22, 2005, the FBI informed Interpol that the child was in yet another location in Mexico. Interpol has searched for the TP and the child on the basis of this information, however, has not been able to locate them. It may be possible that the TP and child are no longer in Mexico and have moved to Guatemala. U.S. Embassy Mexico City has advised U.S. Embassy Guatemala City of this possibility. Efforts are being made to obtain more information for confirmation.
MEXICO CASE 4
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: August 2000
Date Convention application filed: September 2001
Has child been located? Yes
A Convention hearing in this case was scheduled for June 17, 2005 but the TP could not be located when representatives from the Desarrollo Integral de la Familia (DIF), Mexico’s department of children and family services, went to pick up the child. Efforts are now being made to ascertain the location of the TP. Interpol is also working on the case and in April 2005 confirmed an address where the TP and child were living. Although Interpol found the TP and child in April 2005, court staff was unable to locate them for a hearing in June 2005. On
January 24, 2006, Interpol advised U.S. Embassy Mexico City that the MCA needed to submit a new official request to locate the child in Veracruz, where according to the LBP, the TP and child reside. The MCA has submitted the request to Interpol.
Assistant Secretary of State Maura Harty raised this case at the Binational Committee meeting in November 2003 and again in January 2004 when she met with her counterpart at the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs
MEXICO CASE 5
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: February 17, 2003
Date Convention application filed: December 3, 2003
Has child been located? No
In its May 2005 meeting with U.S. Embassy Mexico City, Interpol Mexico reported that it had received the addresses provided by CI and had found a possible address for a paternal aunt. The case has been reassigned to a new judge, who is not familiar with the Convention, and the Mexican CA (MCA) has since forwarded to the presiding judge Convention instructional materials. No hearing date has been set.
On July 5, 2005 the Agencia Federal de Investigaci ó n (AFI), Mexico’s equivalent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, informed Interpol Mexico that it could not locate the child. Interpol then researched school records, and found that the child is not enrolled in school in the state where the TP and child were thought to be located, and subsequently informed the MCA of its findings by letter. CI is attempting to obtain additional information from the LBP regarding the possible whereabouts of the TP and child.
MEXICO CASE 6
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: May 12, 2003
Date Convention application filed: September 24, 2003
Has child been located? Yes
A hearing in this case was scheduled for February 11, 2005, however, the judge, who requested an Article 15 certification, abruptly cancelled it. At a May 2005 meeting with U.S. Embassy Mexico City and the Mexican CA (MCA), the MCA reported that it sent a letter on May 13 to the judge stating that the U.S. Government could not provide Article 15 certification. The MCA asked the state tribunal to reassign the case. A welfare and whereabouts visit was conducted in May 2005 at which time the children seemed to be in good condition. After the close of the reporting period, the court to which the case was reassigned denied the return of the children. It is unknown whether the LBP appealed the decision. U.S. Embassy Mexico City has requested a copy of the judge’s order. The MCA considers this case as being closed.
MEXICO CASE 7
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: October 2, 2001
Date Convention application filed: July 2002
Has child been located? No
This case was filed directly with the Mexican CA by the District Attorney’s Office in California. The TP is allegedly fleeing domestic abuse. On May 20, 2005 Interpol Mexico investigated a state of Veracruz address with negative results. U.S. Embassy Mexico City provided to Interpol photographs of the child. The Mexican Education Department informed Interpol that the child is not enrolled in public schools. Agencia Federal de Investigacion (AFI) is currently investigating another address in the state of Veracruz.
MEXICO CASE 8
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: October 14, 2002
Date Convention application filed: January 6, 2003
Has child been located? Yes
At the May 2005 meeting between U.S. Embassy Mexico City and the Mexican CA (MCA), the MCA reported that it was about to send forward the case to the relevant Mexican state authorities for court assignment. On November 9, 2005, the clerk of the court stated that a psychological evaluation of the child was completed and provided it to the presiding judge. Also after the reporting period, a hearing was held and U.S. Embassy Mexico City received a copy of the court order denying the return of the child because the TP had custody at the time of the child’s removal to Mexico. This case is now closed.
MEXICO CASE 9
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: February 2002
Date Convention application filed: June 2002
Has child been located? No
The child in this case has been retained by her paternal grandmother since February 2002, the same month in which the left-behind mother was awarded sole legal custody of the child in a U.S. court. In July 2004 the child’s grandmother sought, and was denied custody of the child in a Mexican court. The grandmother has since gone into hiding with the child. Both the Mexican Agency of Federal Investigation and Interpol Mexico have been involved in locating grandmother and child.
MEXICO CASE 10
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: May 16, 2001
Date Convention application filed: October 4, 2001
Has child been located? No
The children in this case cannot be located, possibly because of a temporary move away from their grandmother’s home following an earthquake. The Mexican CA (MCA) reported that the judge has not yet returned the case file. The MCA was to have sent a certified copy of the Convention application to the state of Colima tribunal, however, the MCA reports that it has not received a certified copy of the entire file from its legal department. As a result, it has also not submitted the case to the State Tribunal in Colima for assignment to a judge. In March 2006 the MCA requested from CI a copy of the entire file.
MEXICO CASE 11
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: October 4, 2000
Date Convention application filed: November 19, 2003
Has child been located? No
On October 22, 2004, U.S. Embassy Mexico City sent a letter to the presiding judge with a new address where the child might be located as well as a description and tag number of a car seen at that address. The judge never responded to the letter. In April 2005 the U.S. Embassy Mexico City requested Interpol’s assistance locating the child at a house which, according to the LBP father, belongs to the child’s maternal family. Interpol responded that an official request from the MCA is required to begin working on the case. CI facilitated correspondence between the U.S. Embassy Mexico City and the MCA advising the MCA to make a formal request to Interpol. Attempts continued after the reporting period to locate the child. The child could not be found at any of the three addresses provided by the MCA. Most recently Interpol requested information from the education department and is awaiting results. The MCA has since informed U.S. Embassy Mexico City that because the child reportedly is living at the same address, the case will be forwarded to the judge requesting that a visit to the residence take place and that force be used to enter if access is denied.
MEXICO CASE 12
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: May 15, 1999
Date Convention application filed: August 29, 2001
Has child been located? No
The Riverside County District Attorney's office in California filed this case directly with the Mexican CA (MCA). Although the Convention application was filed in August 2001, a judge had still not been assigned to the case by August 2002 because the MCA was concerned that the applicant was a government entity rather than a person. The MCA did, however, proceed with the case and forwarded the file and several addresses to Interpol so that the TP and child could be located. Since that time, a judge was assigned to the case who opposed making a ruling because the case was brought by a government entity. The case remains unresolved as the judge indicated that he could not locate the child and returned the file to Interpol.
MEXICO CASE 13
Date of Abduction: August 1, 1996
Date Convention Application filed: July 30, 1998
Has child been located? No
This case has primarily been delayed due to the Mexican CA’s (MCA) repeated requests for documentation that had been previously provided, but that apparently was never made part of the official MCA file. U.S. Consulate officials in Ciudad Juarez went to various addresses provided by the LBP in 1999 and in 2002 in attempts to conduct welfare/whereabouts visits with the child. The officials were unable to locate the TP or child at the addresses provided.
In February 2001, the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico brought this case to the attention of Mexican officials. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Maura Harty again raised the case with Mexican officials during a Special Commission on the operation of the Convention that occurred in March 2001 in The Netherlands.
Eventually, CI lost contact with the LBP and placed the case in “inactive” status. In 2004 CI re-established contact with the LBP, and later investigated and located the TP in the state of Chihuahua. CI forwarded this information to the MCA with a request to reactivate the case. The MCA requested documentation that CI had already sent on three previous occasions. The LBP provided the documents once again.
In March 2005 the MCA reported that in December 2004 the judge assigned to the case decided that the LBP should have access to the child. In April 2005 the MCA reported that it contacted the regional social service agency to facilitate a visit between the LBP and child. To date, the neither CI, nor U.S. Embassy Mexico City, has received a copy of the judge’s decision. The LBP was never notified that he could visit the child and the MCA has not responded to the U.S. Embassy’s request for a copy of its April 2005 letter to the Mexican social service agency requesting assistance. CI made another request for this documentation in February 2006.
MEXICO CASE 14
Date of Abduction: April 6, 2003
Date Convention application filed: October 3, 2003
Has child been located? Yes
In December 2005, the court summoned the children to court to hear their case. According to the Mexican Central Authority (MCA), the children stated that they did not want to return to the LBP. The LBP chose not to appear at the hearing because her immigration status in the United States is not resolved. The MCA has closed this case; however, CI has not yet received a copy of the judge’s ruling.
MEXICO CASE 15
Date of Abduction: August 1, 2003
Date Convention Application filed: November 25, 2003
Has child been located? No
The Mexican CA (MCA) forwarded this case to the family court of the Federal District of Mexico. U.S. Embassy Mexico City wrote to the judge in August 2004 indicating its interest in the case with a request to be kept informed of any developments. The judge replied in September 2004 that court representatives were not able to locate the TP and child at the address provided by the LBP. In July 2005 U.S. Embassy Mexico City wrote a letter to Interpol Mexico providing additional leads on where the mother and child might be located.
On October 4, 2005, Interpol informed the U.S. Embassy Mexico City that it had confirmed the TP and child were at one of the addresses provided by the LBP. U.S. Embassy Mexico City immediately asked the MCA to share this information with the court so a hearing date could be set. A hearing date was set for
February 8, 2006, however, when the court representatives went to the address provided by the LBP, and subsequently confirmed by Interpol, the TP and child were not found. A new search will commence at a time of the judge’s discretion.
MEXICO CASE 16
Date of Abduction: November 26, 2001
Date Convention Application filed: May 21, 2003
Have children been located? No
The children in this case have never been located. On October 28, 2004, the Mexican CA (MCA) reported to U.S. Embassy Mexico City that they had referred the case to Interpol to search for the children. In May 2005 the MCA reported that the children were known to be at a location in the state of Guanajuato. In November 2005 the court attempted to serve the TP but she was not at the location Interpol had given. Neither CI nor the MCA currently have any information about where the TP and child may be located.
MEXICO CASE 17
Date of Abduction: December 2, 1997
Date Convention application filed: January 31, 1998
Has child been located? No
The Mexican authorities have never been able to locate the TP or child. In February 2001, the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, in a discussion with Mexican officials about their lack of success in locating abducted children, discussed this case, among others. Assistant Secretary of State Maura Harty discussed this case with the Mexican delegation to the Special Commission on the operation of the Convention in the Netherlands in March 2001.
The case had reached a dead-end until March 2005 when the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children shared with CI and U.S. Embassy Mexico City a lead it received that the TP and child were in Mexico City. The U.S. Embassy provided the address to the Mexican CA (MCA). Judicial representatives did not go to the address until September 2005, however, when they found the house empty. Neighbors confirmed that, until August, the TP and child still lived there. The MCA representative, who accompanied the judge and police to the house, asked the judge to continue the search and send police to the local elementary school. The judge refused to do so, stating that an official written request was required.
MEXICO CASE 18
Date of Abduction: August 5, 2003
Date Convention application filed: September 18, 2003
Has child been located? Yes
The Los Angeles County Department of Child and Family Services (LACDCFS) has had custodial rights to the child since 2001. In 2003, LACDCFS gave the foster mother, who is the biological aunt of the child, permission to take the child on vacation to her grandmother’s house in Mexico. The foster mother claimed that the biological mother appeared in Mexico and took the child at gunpoint.
In May 2004, representatives of Mexico’s Social Service Agency (Desarrollo Integral de la Familia) visited the grandmother’s house. They found the biological mother and child residing there. The TP told the social service representatives that if authorities were to come to take the child, she would take the child into hiding.
The LACDCFS still seeks the return of the child. The Mexican Central Authority required additional documentation for the Convention case, which was delivered in January 2005. Since then, the Mexican Central Authority has provided no information on the case.
MEXICO CASE 19
Date of Abduction: December 15, 1998
Date Convention Application filed: March 8, 1999
Has child been located? Yes
After many years the TP and child were located and a hearing date set. To date, a decision has still not been made in this case.
MEXICO CASE 20
Date of Abduction: October 5, 1999
Date Convention Application filed: December 2, 1999
Has the child been located? No
The TP and child are believed to be living at the maternal grandmother's home in Mexico but the court is unable to verify this. In June 2000, the Department provided the TP’s address to the Mexican CA (MCA). The judge to whom the case was assigned initially refused to take jurisdiction. While the jurisdictional issued was under review by the Mexican courts, CI discussed alternate non-Convention remedies with the TP in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Justice. The jurisdictional issue in Mexico was eventually resolved and a hearing was scheduled, but the TP disappeared with the child. After the TP failed to appear at three separate hearings between March and June 2001, the judge, in an unprecedented move in a Convention case in Mexico, issued a warrant for the TP’s arrest. The case remained with the judge pending location of the child. The TP was never arrested, even though the LBP’s contact 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 not the child.
On October 19, 2005, U.S. Embassy Mexico City sent a letter to the MCA providing information on a possible location of the TP and child in the Mexican state of Puebla. Interpol reported that they were investigating three possible addresses in Puebla, including one provided earlier by the Embassy. To date, Interpol has not located the TP or child, but has confirmed that the child is not enrolled in Puebla public schools. Recently, the MCA reported that the LBP’s Mexican attorney, stated in October 2005, that she had located the TP and child, however the attorney’s “legal strategy” would take some time to resolve the case. The MCA suggests that this case illustrates the conflict caused when an attorney presents custodial issues in a case, rather that limiting it to the jurisdictional issues inherent in the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
MEXICO CASE 21
Date of Abduction: May 12, 2000
Date Convention Application filed: June 16, 2000
Has child been located? No
In a Convention hearing held in July 2000 the judge ordered the TP to return the child to the United States. The TP fled with the child before the order could be enforced. In August 2004 the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) received a lead indicating the TP’s likely whereabouts in Mexico. NCMEC forwarded this information to the Mexican CA. In October 2004 U.S. Embassy Mexico City wrote a letter to Interpol Mexico providing this same information and seeking assistance in investigating this lead. To date, neither the Embassy nor CI has received a response.
MEXICO CASE 22
Date of Abduction: March 1, 2002
Date Convention Application filed: July 26, 2002
Has child been located? No
The children in this case have not been located. The judge to whom the case was assigned asked for Interpol’s assistance in locating the children in 2003, but the case has been dormant since then as neither Interpol nor the LBP have information on the TP or child’s whereabouts. In March 2006, U.S. Embassy Mexico City officials investigated and located a possible address for the TP and shared the information with Mexican officials.
MEXICO CASE 23
Date of Abduction: July 11, 2001
Date Convention Application filed: August 9, 2002
Has child been located? Not known
The San Diego District Attorney’s Office filed this case directly with the Mexican CA (MCA). CI received an informational copy only. In December 2004 the San Diego District Attorney’s Office told CI that it had not heard anything from the MCA since the application was filed more than two years earlier. In March and July of 2005 CI sent inquiries to the California Attorney General’s office asking for updates on the case. CI did not receive a response.
MEXICO CASE 24
Date of Abduction: October 1, 2001
Date Convention Application filed: May 28, 2002
Has child been located? No
The Mexican CA (MCA) sent the case to the State Court of Guanajuato in August 2002. The judge made two visits to the address provided by the LBP but was not able to locate the TP or child. Finally, in May 2005, Interpol Mexico located them, but when Court representatives went to the address provided by Interpol, the TP and child were not found. The LBP has provided another possible address. U.S. Embassy Mexico City reported this new information to the MCA in January 2006, and the MCA has in turn submitted the new information to Interpol.
POLAND
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: November 28, 1998
Date Convention application filed: August 4, 1999
Has child 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 of State 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 Convention with Polish Undersecretary of State Wolski. CI staff has discussed this case with Polish officials in March 2005 and in September 2005.
U.S. Embassy Warsaw officials have repeatedly brought this case to the attention of the Polish Central Authority (PCA). Actions include a diplomatic note in 2001, a meeting with the Minister of Justice in 2002, four diplomatic notes and a letter to the court in 2003, four diplomatic notes in 2004, a letter in 2004 from the Consul General to the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs, four diplomatic notes in 2005, a letter in 2005 from the Ambassador to the Polish Minister of Justice, and meetings between U.S. Embassy Warsaw and the PCA on a monthly to bi-monthly basis.
In September 2005 CI became aware that a Polish court, as part of a divorce case filed by the TP, ordered a stay of enforcement of the Convention order, citing that it may no longer be in the children’s best interest to be returned because of the length of time that has elapsed. The court then ordered psychological evaluations be conducted so it can make a ruling on child custody. The USCA views this as being in direct contravention to the Convention. Although the LBP has since appealed the court’s suspension of the Convention order to the Polish Supreme Court, stating a violation of proper civil court procedure, he has elected to cooperate thus far, including traveling to Poland to meet with the court ordered psychologist. Neither the TP nor the children appeared for the evaluation as ordered.
SPAIN
Date of abduction or wrongful retention: April 18, 2001
Date Convention 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 the child from the United States to Spain. The LBP filed a Convention 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 were believed to be in the Canary Islands. Spanish authorities later reported that the TP and child had departed Spain for Venezuela. CI has requested updates from the Spanish Central Authority, despite the lack of contact with the LBP since that time. The TP is a Venezuelan foreign national, and no attempts at finding the TP and child in Spain have been successful. It is therefore inconclusive that the TP and child remain in Spain.
