International Parental Child Abductions
Alison M. Smith
Legislative Attorney
November 22, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS21261
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
International Parental Child Abductions
Summary
International child custody disputes are likely to increase in frequency as the global society
becomes more integrated and mobile. A child custody dispute between two parents can become a
diplomatic imbroglio between two countries. Since 1988, the Hague Convention on the Civil
Aspects of International Child Abduction (“Hague Convention” or “Convention”) has been the
principal mechanism for enforcing the return of abducted children to the United States. While the
treaty authorizes the prompt return of the abducted child, it does not impose criminal sanctions on
the abducting parent. Congress, to reinforce the Hague Convention, adopted the International
Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993 to impose criminal punishment on parents who
wrongfully remove or retain a child outside U.S. borders.
However, the Hague Convention is not always applicable in such cases. Signatory nations do not
have to automatically return a child to his or her place of habitual residence, as discretionary
exceptions exist that enable the child to remain with the removing parent. Also, procedures and
remedies available under the Convention differ depending on the parental rights infringed. Courts
must determine whether a particular order confers a right of custody or a lesser right of access.
For example, federal courts disagreed on what type of right a ne exeat, or “no exit,” order
granting one parent the right to veto another parent’s decision to remove their child from his
home country confers. The U.S. Supreme Court resolved the circuit split by finding that such an
order confers a right of custody, thus triggering enforceability under the Convention. However, it
is important to note that this decision was limited to ne exeat orders. As such, courts will have to
address which side of the access-custody line any other arrangements may fall.
This report will discuss the applicability of the Hague Convention and current U.S. laws, both
civil and criminal, which seek to address the quandary of children abducted by parents to foreign
nations. In addition, pending legislation, including H.R. 3240 and H.R. 3487, is discussed. This
report will be updated as events warrant.
Congressional Research Service
International Parental Child Abductions
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Hague Convention ...................................................................................................................... 1
Rights of Custody vs. Rights of Access ................................................................................. 2
Exceptions to a Child’s Prompt Return .................................................................................. 3
Current U.S. Laws ...................................................................................................................... 5
International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA).......................................................... 5
International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (IPKCA) ......................................................... 5
Fugitive Felon Act ................................................................................................................ 6
Extradition Treaties Interpretation Act of 1988 ...................................................................... 6
Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act,
Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 ................................................................................................ 7
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as Amended ............................................................ 7
Pending Legislation .................................................................................................................... 7
International Parental Child Abduction Deterrence Act (H.R. 3487)....................................... 7
International Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2009 (H.R. 3240)........................................ 8
Contacts
Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................ 8
Congressional Research Service
International Parental Child Abductions
Introduction
International child abduction is not new. However, one can argue that incidents of child abduction
continue to increase due to the ease of international travel as well as an increase in bicultural
marriages. Parental child abduction across international boundaries often garners global attention
and demands for international solutions. Since 1988, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects
of International Child Abduction (“Hague Convention” or “Convention”) has been the principal
mechanism for enforcing the return of abducted children to the United States.1 While the
Convention promotes the prompt return of an abducted child,2 it does not impose criminal
sanctions on the abducting parent. Moreover, the Convention’s available remedies do not apply to
nations that fail to participate. The Convention’s procedures are inapplicable and unenforceable in
nonsignatory nations.3 As such, parents and governments must often embark on the difficult and
sometimes impossible task of seeking other means of resolving international child custody
disputes with such nations.4
Hague Convention
The Hague Convention protects children from wrongful removal across international borders and
provides procedures to aid in their safe return.5 The Convention’s platform is intended to
guarantee that one signatory nation will respect and follow the custody rights and laws of all other
signatory nations.6 The signatory nations are Argentina, Australia, Austria, the Bahamas,
Belgium, Belize, Bermuda, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, the
Cayman Islands, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark,
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, the Falkland Islands, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region,
Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macau,
1 Throughout this memorandum, “abduction” and “kidnapping” refer to the unlawful removal or retention of a child by
one parent to deprive the other parent of the rights of custody and access to that child. See International Parental
Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1204.
2 See Hague Conference on Private International Law: Final Act, Draft Conventions on Civil Aspects of International
Child Abduction and on International Access to Justice, Articles on the Law Applicable to Certain Consumer Sales,
and Recommendations and Decisions of the Conference, October 25, 1980, 19 I.L.M. 1501 (1980) (hereinafter Hague
Convention).
3 If a child is abducted from the United States to a country that is not a party to the Hague Convention, the parent can
petition a court in that country to enforce a U.S. custody order. However, U.S. laws are not binding or legally
enforceable in a nonsignatory country unless the country does so voluntarily as a matter of comity.
4 See Cara L. Finan, Comment, Conventions on the Rights of the Child: A Potentially Effective Remedy in Cases of
International Child Abduction, 34 Santa Clara L. Rev. 1007, 1008 (1994) (noting that the U.S. State Department cannot
help parents when dealing with Non-Hague nations); see also Lara Cardin, Comment, The Hague Convention on the
Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction As Applied to Non-Signatory Nations: Getting to Square One, 20 Hous.
J. Int’l L. 141, 157-58 (1997) (noting problems parents may face when dealing with a country not party to the Hague
Convention).
5 See Hague Convention art. 1 (outlining purpose of Hague Convention).
6 See id. at art. 1 (noting objective of Hague Convention); but see Cardin, supra note 5, at 145 (warning Hague
Convention only empowers courts to decide merits of abduction). The courts where the child habitually resides
determine custody issues. See id. The location where the child resided at the time of the abduction or unlawful retention
determines habitual residence. See Joel R. Brandes and Carol L. Weidman, “Habitual Residence” Under the Hague
Convention, N.Y.L.J., September 23, 1997, at col. 1 (defining habitual residence).
Congressional Research Service
1
International Parental Child Abductions
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro,
Montserrat, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal,
Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, St. Kitts and Nevis, Sri
Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, Uruguay, the United States,
Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.7
The Hague Convention does not act as an extradition treaty, nor does it purport to adjudicate the
merits of a custody dispute.8 It is merely a civil remedy9 designed to preserve the status quo by
returning an abducted child to the country of his or her “habitual residence” and allowing the
judicial authorities in that country to adjudicate the merits of a custody dispute. As such, the
proceeding is brought in the country to which the child was abducted or in which the child is
retained.10 Although domestic relations involve issues typically governed by state law, the federal
statute implementing the Hague Convention explicitly confers jurisdiction on the federal courts.11
Rights of Custody vs. Rights of Access
Procedures and remedies available under the Convention differ depending on the parental rights
infringed. Under Article 3 of the Hague Convention, the removal of a child is “wrongful” when
“it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either
jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately
before the removal or retention;” and “at the time of removal or retention those rights were
actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or
retention.”12
Thus, there are two elements to a claim that the child’s removal was “wrongful” under Article 3:
(1) the removal was in breach of “rights of custody”; and (2) those rights were “actually
exercised” at the time of the removal, or would have been but for the removal.
Article 5 in turn defines “rights of custody,” and distinguishes those rights from “rights of
access”:
(a) “rights of custody” shall include rights relating to the care of the person of the child and,
in particular, the right to determine the child’s place of residence;
7 Information obtained from United States Central Authority, Office of Citizens Consular Services, Child Custody
Division at http://travel.state.gov/family/abduction/hague_issues/hague_issues_1487.html (last visited October 13,
2009).
8 Article 19 of the Hague Convention states that “[a] decision under this Convention concerning the return of the child
shall not be taken as a determination on the merits of any custody issue.” Id., art. 19, at 1503.
9 The Hague Convention is a “private civil legal mechanism,” and as such, “the parents, not the governments are parties
to the legal action.” Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Dep’t of State, Pub. No. 10489, International Parental Child
Abduction 9 (1997).
10 When a child of a custodial parent in another country is abducted to the United States, the parent has the option of
asking the court in the jurisdiction in which the child is found to enforce the foreign custody degree.
11 International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11603(a).
12 Hague Convention, supra note 6, art. 3. The rights of custody mentioned in subparagraph (a) may arise “in particular
by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision, or by reason of an agreement having legal
effect under the law of that State.” Id.
Congressional Research Service
2
International Parental Child Abductions
(b) “rights of access” shall include the right to take a child for a limited period of time to a
place other than the child’s habitual residence.13
Critically, the treaty provides for the return of the child only if a parent’s custody rights have been
violated.14 Parents deprived of their rights of access have the less robust remedy provided for in
Article 21 of “mak[ing] arrangements” with the Department of State to secure effective exercise
of their rights.15
Countries utilize an array of orders in child custody disputes. Courts must determine whether an
order confers a right of custody or a lesser right of access under the Convention. For example,
federal courts disagreed on what type of right is conferred by a ne exeat, or “no exit,” order,
which grants one parent the right to veto another parent’s decision to remove their child from his
or her home country. In Abbott v. Abbott,16 the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the circuit split by
finding that such an order confers a right of custody, thus triggering enforceability under the
Convention. In making its decision, the Court relied on the Convention’s text and purpose to deter
child abductions, deferred to the executive branch’s treaty interpretation, and consulted
international case law to establish a uniform interpretation. It is important to note that the Court’s
decision is limited to ne exeat orders. While the ne exeat-physical custody arrangement is a
common one, it is not the only one implemented by courts in child custody disputes. Therefore,
courts will have to address which side of the access-custody line any other arrangements may fall.
The Court also did not address the broader issue of whether the child must be returned to his
home country, instead noting that there are exceptions to the general remedy of a child’s prompt
return.
Exceptions to a Child’s Prompt Return
The Central Authorities, appointed by each respective signatory nation, cooperate with one
another to discover the location of the wrongfully retained child, to prevent harm to the child, and
to ensure the prompt return of the child. Signatory nations do not have to automatically return the
child to his or her place of habitual residence; discretionary exceptions exist that enable the child
to remain with the removing parent. For example, Article 4 of the Convention establishes that if
the child is over age 16 at the time of the original taking or retention, or becomes 16 at any time
after the taking, the Convention does not apply. Also, if the custody rights involved are those of
visitation (“access,” as they are termed in the Convention), the Central Authority may facilitate
and secure those rights, but under Article 21, a violation of visitation rights does not trigger
procedures to require the child’s return.
Other requests for returns may be affected by discretionary factors. It is within the judge’s
discretionary power under Article 12 to refuse return of the child if the child has become settled
in the new environment and more than one year has passed from the date of the taking or
13 Id. at art. 5.
14 Id. at art. 1 & 3. Parents’ attained custody rights to a child include rights associated with the care of the child and the
right to determine the child’s place of residence. See id. But see Brandes and Weidman (stating the parent does not
need actual custody to use the Convention). A lawful custodian’s denial of association with a child or a breach of a
custody agreement may occur, giving rise to the application of the Hague Convention. The violation of a court decree
does not have to exist for the Hague Convention to consider the removal or retention of a child wrongful.
15 Id. at art. 21.
16 130 S.Ct. 1983 (2010).
Congressional Research Service
3
International Parental Child Abductions
detention. If more than one year has passed and the reason for the delay was concealment of the
child’s location, the petition to enforce a U.S. custody order may still be considered under the
argument that the one-year limit should be tolled due to the abducting parent’s conduct, as equity
demands no one profit from his or her own wrongdoing.
Discretion is also afforded under Article 13 if the child is deemed mature enough to voice a
preference for staying, or if there is a grave risk of harm to the child if returned. Children as
young as nine have been found mature enough to have their wishes considered.17 Finally, return
may also be refused if it would be against the fundamental principles of human rights and
freedoms in the requested state to return the child. Signatory countries have rendered a wide
variation of decisions interpreting these discretionary criteria.18 There is also a marked variance in
the rate of return among the different signatory countries.19
The Hague Convention attempts to prevent Central Authorities in the requested states from
making judgments based upon cultural principles of the child’s origin country by abandoning the
method of using the child’s “best interests” to justify keeping the wrongfully retained child in the
respective state.20 The Hague Convention bases its terms on civil, not criminal international law,
and therefore criminal liability and extradition provisions do not fall within its scope.21
Although the Hague Convention contains certain limitations, it apparently offers the greatest
chance for a prompt return of a wrongfully removed child. The difficulty with parental
international child abductions lies in the fact that many countries do not participate in the Hague
Convention, and when a parent takes a child to a non-Hague contracting state, governments of the
nations involved are not obligated to assist in the child’s return. Some countries refuse to
participate in the Hague Convention because they do not believe in the automatic return of the
child; rather they presume that the determination of the child’s best interests should occur within
their own jurisdiction and under their own laws.22 An analysis of the child’s best interests
considers the religious and social values of the respective countries involved, but religious and
cultural tensions between these countries and Western-culture family law often render
negotiations nearly impossible.23
17 See S v. S. [1993] 2 F.L.R. 492 (C.A.) (English decision refusing to return child to France).
18 See Linda Silberman, Hague Convention on International Child Abduction: A Brief Overview and Case Law
Analysis, 28 Fam. L.Q. 9, 24 (1994).
19 See Linda Girdner and Janet Chiancone, A.B.A. Ctr. on Children and the Law, Survey of Central Authorities of the
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1997) (showing successful return rate
varying from 5% (Finland) to 95% (Luxembourg)).
20 See Dorothy Carol Daigle, Note, Due Process Rights of Parents and Children in International Child Abductions: An
Examination of the Hague Convention and Its Exception, 26 VNJTL 865, 869 (1993) (noting how automatic return of
child tries to prevent value judgments about state).
21 See Finan, supra note 5, at 1013 (clarifying Hague Convention not grounded in criminal law). Punishment of the
abductor is not the Hague Convention’s purpose; its main concern focuses on having the wrongfully removed child
placed back in his or her original situation before the removal by denying the abductor any legal advantage from the
retention of the child in another signatory state.
22 Carol S. Bruch, Religious Law, Secular Practices, and Children’s Human Rights in Child Abduction Cases Under the
Hague Child Abduction Convention, 33 N.Y.U. J. Int’l. & Pol. 49, 51-53 (discussing the difficulties between Western
countries and Islamic nations when negotiating child custody disputes because of the sensitivity surrounding the
differing religious and social aspects of the cultures involved).
23 Id.
Congressional Research Service
4
International Parental Child Abductions
Current U.S. Laws
Law enforcement in the United States historically viewed parental kidnapping as a private family
matter that did not require outside involvement. This belief has changed, resulting in the
enactment of several laws that recognize the seriousness and criminality of parental
kidnappings.24 Presently, law enforcement agents with arrest warrants seek out parents who have
violated a custody decree by taking a child out of the state or country. Difficulties arise when
parents take children out of the country because foreign courts have no obligation to enforce
American custody decrees or abide by American laws. Even though the United States has
difficulty enforcing parental kidnapping laws abroad, these laws can act as useful mechanisms to
facilitate solutions to international child abductions.
International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA)25
On April 29, 1988, the same day the United States became a signatory to the Hague Convention,
Congress enacted the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA).26 ICARA empowers
state and federal courts to hear cases under the Convention and allows the Central Authority
access to information in certain American records regarding the location of a child and abducting
parent. In the United States, the Office of Children’s Issues (OCI) in the Department of State
serves as the Central Authority in instances where children are wrongly removed from the United
States. A parent seeking the return of a child who the parent claims has been wrongly abducted
may apply to the “Central Authority” of the child’s habitual residence or of any other signatory
nation to the Hague Convention.27 Unfortunately, the Hague Convention and ICARA cannot
function as remedies in a situation that involves a nonsignatory nation of the Hague Convention,
and U.S. courts have dismissed complaints made under ICARA for failure to state a claim
because of the involvement of a nonsignatory nation.28
International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (IPKCA)29
The International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (IPKCA) criminalizes the removal of a child
from the United States with “the intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights.” The
term “parental rights” refers to the right to joint or sole physical custody of a child obtained
through a court order, a legally binding agreement between the involved parties, or by operation
of law.30 A parent can use IPKCA as an affirmative defense, and it will not detract from the
24 As of July 2001, as provided by P.L. 106-113, Section 236, both parents or legal guardians are required to execute a
passport application for a minor child under age 14. In addition, the person executing the application must provide
documentary evidence demonstrating that the individual has either (1) sole custody of the child or (2) consent of the
other parent to the passport’s issuance. 22 U.S.C.A. § 213.
25 42 U.S.C. § 11601 et seq.
26 42 U.S.C. § 11601(a).
27 Hague Convention, art. 6, at 1501.
28 See Mezo v. Elmergawi, 855 F. Supp. 59 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) (discussing now ICARA and Hague remedies do not apply
to non-signatories).
29 18 U.S.C. § 1204 (explaining what constitutes a criminal act under IPKCA). Violating the statute subjects the
perpetrator to a fine, imprisonment of not more than three years, or both. Id.
30 See id. (defining the term “parental rights”).
Congressional Research Service
5
International Parental Child Abductions
provisions of the Hague Convention.31 Defendants have challenged the constitutionality of
IPKCA, questioning the vagueness of the act and claiming that it violates the free exercise of
religion, but U.S. courts have upheld it.32
IPKCA may provide the potential to prosecute wrongful acts of parents, but it cannot guarantee
the return of children from foreign countries where their parents wrongfully removed them. For
example, in United States v. Amer,33 Ahmed Amer abducted his two children to Egypt and was
given custody in an Egyptian court. His wife, who previously had been given custody in a U.S.
court,34 filed a complaint with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).35 Upon Ahmed’s return
to the United States, he was arrested on charges of international parental kidnapping in violation
of IPKCA.36 Ahmed was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment and a one-year term of
supervised release under the special condition that he return the abducted children to the United
States.37 When Ahmed began his supervised release term, he expressed an unwillingness to return
his children to the United States.38
Fugitive Felon Act39
The Fugitive Felon Act enhances states’ abilities to pursue abductors beyond state and national
borders by permitting the FBI to investigate cases that would otherwise fall under state
jurisdiction. The act also authorizes the use of Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution (UFAP)
warrants in parental kidnapping cases.
Extradition Treaties Interpretation Act of 198840
The Extradition Treaties Interpretation Act of 1988 authorizes the United States to interpret
extradition treaties listing “kidnapping” as encompassing the offense of parental kidnapping.
31 See id. (outlining affirmative defense and boundaries of IPKCA). Affirmative defenses under IPKCA are (1) the
defendant acted pursuant to a valid court decree under UCCJA; (2) the defendant was escaping domestic violence; (3)
the defendant had lawful physical custody of the child and failed to return the child because of circumstances beyond
his or her control, and the parent made an attempt at reasonable notice to the other parent within 24 hours. See id.
32 See United States v. Fazal-Ur-Raheman Fazal, 203 F.Supp. 2d 33, (D. Mass., 2002) (finding that IPKCA was
constitutionally valid under a rational basis analysis); see also, United States v. Amer, 110 F.3d 873, 879 (2d Cir. 1997)
(rejecting the challenge that IPKCA violates the free exercise clause because it is a neutral law of general application
that “punishes parental kidnappings solely for the harm they cause.”).
33 110 F.3d 873, 873 (2d Cir. 1997).
34 See id.
35 See Brief for the United States at 4-5, United States v. Amer, 110 F.3d 873 (2d Cir. 1996) (No. 96-1181).
36 See id. at 7.
37 See id. at 14.
38 See Transcript of the Hearing at 9, 23, United States v. Amer, 110 F.3d 873 (2d Cir. 1996) (CR-95-693 (CBA)).
39 18 U.S.C. § 1073.
40 Note 18 U.S.C. § 3181.
Congressional Research Service
6
International Parental Child Abductions
Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 200141
Section 236 of the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization
Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001, requires both parents or legal guardians to execute a passport
application for a minor under age 14.42 In addition, the individual executing the application must
provide documentary evidence demonstrating that the individual has either (1) sole custody of the
child or (2) the other parent’s consent to the passport’s issuance.43 However, it should be noted
that passport controls may be ineffective under some circumstances, as some abductors are dual
nationals or citizens of the country to which they are returning. Therefore, the child may also be a
citizen of the other country. If a dual national, the child is eligible for passports from both the
United States and the other country of nationality.
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as Amended44
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides that any alien who, in violation of a custody
order issued by a U.S. court, takes or retains a child out of the United States, may be excluded
from the United States. The exclusion applies only to aliens, not to U.S. citizens, and does not
apply if the child is taken to or kept in a county that has ratified the Hague Convention. The
exclusion ceases to apply when the child is surrendered. This exclusion can also be applied to
relatives or friends who assist in keeping the child abroad. This act may give the U.S.-based
parent leverage in negotiating for the child’s return if the alien parent needs to reenter the United
States for any reason.
Pending Legislation
International Parental Child Abduction Deterrence Act (H.R.
3487)45
H.R. 3487 would amend the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act to make it a federal
felony to assist in the retention of an abducted child. In addition, courts would be required to
freeze all financial assets (including property) of foreign nationals pending the final disposition of
criminal cases.
41 P.L. 106-113.
42 Note 22 U.S.C. § 213.
43 22 U.S.C. § 213.
44 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(10)(C)(i).
45 111th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced on July 31, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
7
International Parental Child Abductions
International Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2009 (H.R. 3240)46
H.R. 3240 would (1) establish within the Department of State an Office on International Child
Abductions to be headed by the Ambassador at Large for International Child Abductions whose
responsibilities include advising the President and Secretary of State regarding relevant matters as
well as promoting measures to prevent and/or resolve cases of international child abductions; (2)
set forth consultation, notification, and reporting requirements for the President and Secretary of
State; (3) prohibit judicial review of any presidential determination or agency action under the
act; (4) amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 196147 and the International Financial Institutions
Act,48 in determining whether a country engages in a pattern of gross human rights violations for
purposes of assistance considerations, to consider whether such country has engaged in a pattern
of noncooperation49 regarding unresolved cases of international child abductions or denial of
rights of access,50 or has failed to undertake serious efforts to locate children abducted to such
country; (5) amend the Trade Act of 1974 to consider for tariff preference purposes whether a
country has engaged in a pattern of noncooperation regarding unresolved cases of international
child abduction or denial of rights of access; and (6) amend the Admiral James W. Nance and
Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001,51 to require, for
issuance of a passport for a child under 14 years old living outside the United States, that the
person executing the passport application provide documentary evidence that such person is a
U.S. citizen, has joint custody over the child, and is executing such application outside the United
States.
Author Contact Information
Alison M. Smith
Legislative Attorney
amsmith@crs.loc.gov, 7-6054
46 111th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced on July 16, 2009.
47 22 U.S.C. §§ 2151n(c), 2304(a)(4) and 2304(b).
48 22 U.S.C. § 262d.
49 “Pattern of noncooperation” is defined in the bill as:
a national government’s systemic failure, evidenced by the existence of ten or more parental child
abduction cases which, after having been properly prepared and transmitted by the Central
Authority for the United States remain unresolved within its borders after 18 months or, where
there are fewer than ten unresolved cases, any cases still unresolved after nine months from the
time of receipt and transmittal by the Central Authority for the United States of a request to fulfill
its international obligations with respect to the prompt resolution of cases of child abduction.
50 “Rights of access” is defined as “the rights of a parent and child to enjoy reasonable unfettered contact both within
and outside the State of the child’s habitual residence.”
51 P.L. 106-113.
Congressional Research Service
8