Argentina is a party to the Hague Abduction Convention but it has been repeatedly identified by the U.S. State Department as a country that demonstrates a “Pattern of Noncompliance” as defined in the International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act of 2014.

The State Department has reported, in its 2020 Annual Report on International Child Abduction, that:

“In 2019, Argentina continued to demonstrate a pattern of noncompliance. Specifically, the Argentine judicial authorities persistently failed to implement and comply with the provisions of the Convention. As a result of this failure, 100 percent of requests for the return of abducted children under the Convention remained unresolved for more than 12 months. On average, these cases were unresolved for five years. Argentina was previously cited for demonstrating a pattern of noncompliance in the 2014-2019 Annual Reports. ,,,  There were serious delays by the Argentine judicial authorities in deciding Convention cases. As a result of these delays, cases may be pending with the judiciary for over one year, contributing to a pattern of noncompliance. … In one longstanding case, Argentina did not enforce a return order for several years. Additionally, Argentina’s legal system allows multiple appeals both on the merits of the decision and on the manner in which the decisions are enforced, thereby creating excessive delays.”

By: Jane Kitagawa | Jan 23, 2014 

It sounds like something out of a John Grisham novel—but it’s not.

“The gentleman was here on a holiday in January 2013 with his family,” explains Bruce Gherbetti, deputy chairman of Kizuna Child-Parent Reunion, discussing the case of a Canadian man who had reached out to their organization after his Japanese wife abducted their son. “During the second week of their vacation he went to have a shower, and when he got out—they were gone. He hasn’t heard from his wife since and has no idea where they might be.”

Sadly, the man’s case is just one of many on Kizuna’s books. The organization, an NGO pressing to restore parent-child rights in Japan, specializes in helping “left-behind” parents deal with child abductions to—and within— Japan by their spouses. Kizuna chairman John Gomez estimates there have been about 3 million parental child abductions in Japan since 1992. Gomez himself is a left-behind parent, or LBP. “That’s roughly 150,000 cases per year, and every one of those is a human rights violation,” the soft-spoken Gomez says. “I took data from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare and looked at divorces in Japan from 1992-2011. Primetime NHK news program Close Up Gendai in September 2010 [also] suggested 58 percent of parents lose access to their children after divorce. This is being acknowledged and recorded as an accurate estimate and translates to 1-in-6 children in Japan having lost a parent through divorce.”

Its divorce figures may be consistent with rates worldwide, but Japan is unique in that child abduction after separation or divorce is legal according to its family court. Only one parent is recognized as having shinken (parental rights) with the other expected to forgo all parental privileges.

While the vast majority of cases concern Japanese couples, globalization has seen an increasing number of intercultural relationships in which children can effectively be snatched from their non-Japanese home country and brought to Japan—no questions asked.

Although Japan unanimously passed legislation to allow it to join the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in the spring of 2013, it only applies to future cases. There are also doubts among left-behind parents, lawyers and others alike that not much will change unless domestic laws are also addressed.

Gherbetti is one of the skeptics. “The implementing legislation Japan has passed to accede to the Hague Convention is flawed in many ways. It allows for big loopholes in and around the non-return of children, specifically concerning Article 13(b), which states that if there’s a grave risk to a child, then that child shouldn’t be returned to their country of habitual residence. Japan’s legislation…adds categories where they can deny the return of a child abducted to Japan post-ratification.” According to Gherbetti, a similar scenario exists with the legislation Japan has passed concerning visitation and access.

To that end, Kizuna seeks to become an authorized service provider with permission to implement and facilitate visitation under the Hague Convention in Japan, which requires cooperation between governments and professional experts versed in child-parent reunion issues. It’s part of the organization’s charter to focus on solutions, say Gomez and Gherbetti—yet Kizuna acknowledges that changes to local laws will make more of a difference.

“I think Japan has agreed to sign and implement the Hague Abduction Convention primarily to reduce the pressure from the United States, which has been ramped up over the last four years. When Japan accedes, it will be the 90th country to join the Convention and the last of the G8 countries to do so. But will they be compliant? Probably not,” says Gherbetti.

“On the other hand, legislation has just been approved unanimously in the US House of Representatives—House Resolution 3212: Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction and Return Act of 2013—which gives the president the opportunity to sanction and penalize member countries that are non-compliant with the Hague. I think the gaiatsu [outside pressure] is going to have to remain to ensure Japan is partially compliant.”

Indeed, in mid-December, the House voted to create an annual report to assess child abductions across all countries, and to require President Barack Obama to take action against nations who remain noncompliant. Potential US measures include refusing export licenses for American technology, slashing development assistance and postponing scientific or cultural exchanges. However, the final decision on whether to proceed with punishment would remain with the president. And then there remains the situation with domestic Japanese law and policy.

“The Japan family court system is the root cause of international and domestic abduction cases alike,” says Gomez. “Both kinds of cases are interlinked as the family court ignores foreign court orders and visitation is not enforced. This is despite Japanese Civil Code Article 766 taking effect in April  2012. It requires boxes be checked on divorce forms stating that parents have agreed to a child visitation plan—and that there have been discussions on child support payments—but Kizuna has found via government data that while most divorces go through, only 50 percent of people getting a divorce check the boxes and there’s no follow-up to see whether they comply.

“Furthermore, the family court continually validates claims of domestic violence without thorough investigation and always gives sole custody to the parent who has abducted the children.”

It’s a point that international family attorney Jeremy Morley, based in New York City, says is a sticking point, describing sole custody akin to “’finders keepers, losers weepers’ in its rawest and most cruel form.”

He also mentions the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Japan signed that treaty two decades ago, yet has failed to comply with its principles when it comes to parent-child abductions.

This lack of compliance and ignoring of foreign court orders is something Japanese national Masako Aeko Suzuki knows only too well. Married, living in Canada and mother to a boy, Kazuya David Suzuki, her marriage broke down in the mid-2000s. “My husband, a Japanese, abducted our then 12-year-old son to Japan in 2006,” she recalls. “This was despite the Hague Convention, which I only learned about after my son was kidnapped. A Canadian court also ruled for joint custody and that my son not be forcibly taken to Japan, but by the time this ruling came through, it was too late.”

Masako retuned to Japan and tried to find her son. She struggled with the archaic family law system and its requirements. She learned of other LBP in Japan and was particularly struck by the international cases, given the circumstances under which her own son was abducted.

She reckons she has spent over $100,000 on legal fees both in Canada and Japan and has taken her case to the high and Supreme courts. “My ex-husband Jotaro Suzuki was granted sole custody of my son by the Japanese family court in late 2006; this is standard for abduction cases. I was later granted very brief visitation rights, but Jotaro and Kazuya again disappeared and I haven’t heard from them since.

“In order to apply for further visitation rights, I had to supply my son’s address as per the jyuminhyou (official address registration), but I didn’t know where he was because he’d been kidnapped! It doesn’t make sense!”

Ms. Suzuki admits to being broken, but not defeated. “[Since returning to Japan] I decided to establish my own organization, Left Behind Parents Japan, to help other struggling LBP.” Part advocate, part translator, part interpreter and part counselor, her workload has only increased.

It’s a similar situation at Kizuna, say Gomez and Gherbetti. Future goals are to recruit more volunteers and ramp up fundraising, educate Japanese public about the global standard of joint custody and reconnect children with their left-behind parent while honoring their best interests.

Says Gomez, “This work to reunite children with their parents and change the system in Japan is my life’s mission. We have targets and milestones we’d like to achieve, such as enforceable visitation rights and guidelines for reasonable terms of visitation that permit a parent to maintain a relationship with their child, throughout separation and divorce. That means the amount of hours is sufficient; typically, visitation hours in Japan equate to only one to two hours per month. After that, eventually we’ll look at joint custody, and denial of access should be criminalized. I don’t know how long it will take to change that, but I’ll be working on that indefinitely.”

Hague Convention

The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction works to ensure the prompt return of abducted children to their country of habitual residence. It does so by compelling its signatories to respect the custodial rights of the left-behind parent.

If Japan were a signatory, the Japanese courts would be obliged to order the return of children to their country of habitual residence prior to the abduction. Instead, as is almost always the case in Japan, the court orders a new hearing so that it can decide custody (disregarding previous decisions), which is exactly what the Hague Convention seeks to avoid.

Glimmers of Hope?

Says Gomez: “In terms of enforcement of visitation, we’re starting to see an inkling of the beginnings of enforcement. This is because in March 2013, a Japanese Supreme Court ruling upheld a Hokkaido High Court ruling that financial penalty for failure to comply with a visitation agreement was legal. Optimistically, I hope this brings about systemic change.”

Warning Signs

Many of the people interviewed for this story said it was difficult to pinpoint any signs separate to general marital discord that suggest one’s partner may be considering abducting their children. Bruce Gherbetti sums it up thusly:

“I don’t know if there are any warning signs per se that would differentiate a potential abductor from someone who’s just in an unhappy marriage, but one of the things that people might want to be wary of is the issue of separation itself. From my own personal experience, I wouldn’t recommend talking about separation. That could possibly tip someone into abducting.”

The Children’s Rights Network (see below), a treasure trove of information on child abduction on the internet, has also published a useful parental abduction preparedness checklist.

Rights of the Child

“The U.N. Convention provides that countries shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Unfortunately, Japan’s legal system does not adequately protect this right. In Japan it is rare for a court to effectively enforce the fundamental human right of both parents after a divorce to have a significant role in the life of their children (and the fundamental human right of children to have both parents in their lives). This will likely make it difficult for the Japanese courts to effectively implement the Hague Abduction Convention.”—international family law attorney Jeremy Morley.

Jeremy D. Morley

A vigorous dispute that affects non-resident Indians throughout the world is playing out within the Supreme Court of India itself about a notorious provision in India’s Penal Law. 
 
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was enacted in 1983 to protect abused wives. It makes it criminal for a husband and his relatives to subject a married woman to cruelty is which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave physical or mental injury to her, and harassment with a view to coercing her or any of her relatives to meet any unlawful demands of property. 

While the purpose of the law was entirely noble, its enactment provides a perfect example of the “law of unintended consequences.”

The law has allowed disgruntled wives (but not husbands) to use the powers of the Indian police, the Indian courts and other branches of government in India as a powerful and abusive weapon with which to intimidate, attack and blackmail their husbands and his parents and other family members even if they do not live in India.

The misapplication of the statute results from a “perfect storm” of circumstances. They included the use of extremely vague statutory language to define “cruelty;” a separate law that prohibits the provision or acceptance of a dowry; a custom that has been difficult to eradicate of a bride giving a dowry upon marriage; a provision that the law that may only be used by married women against her husband and any of his allegedly-participating male or female relatives; a police force that is notoriously corrupt; a provision that the offense is “cognizable,” meaning that the police may make an immediate arrest of the husband and members of his family merely on the basis of a woman’s unreviewed allegations in a complaint; a provision that the offense is “non-bailable” (meaning that once the police arrest a person they cannot release anyone on bail, so that the arrested person has to make an application for bail before a magistrate or court); a domestic relations procedure that is extremely cumbersome and in many ways unworkable; and a criminal system in India which is subject to extreme delays and corruption.

The result has been that when a marriage breaks up the wife is often able to get her husband and many of his family members arrested or subject to arrest by simply filing a claim of cruelty and then persuading the local police to arrest the so-called wrongdoers. This is much more effective than initiating an ordinary case for divorce. 

In the case of non-resident Indians, the process has often proved calamitous for the husband. A typical scenario is that the spouses have an argument and the wife runs off to India, often with the children and as many of the assets as she can take. She then immediately starts a Section 498A case in India and she then sues for divorce and custody in India. The husband cannot step foot in India because he will be arrested. Meanwhile his relatives in India clamor for him to settle up with his wife because they have been in jail or are fearful that that will happen. Indeed, the Supreme Court of India has described such conduct as “legal terrorism.” 

In Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2017 SC 3869, the Supreme Court of India stated that, “It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498A alleging harassment of married women. We have already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement. This Court had earlier observed that a serious review of the provision was warranted.” The Court cited criticism of the misuse of the law by the Law Commission of India and other entities. 

It ruled that it was necessary for the Supreme Court to take remedial steps because:

          “There is a growing tendency to abuse the said provision to rope in all the relatives including parents of advanced age, minor children, siblings, grand-parents and uncles on the strength of vague and exaggerated allegations without there being any verifiable evidence of physical or mental harm or injury. At times, this results in harassment and even arrest of innocent family members, including women and senior citizens.”

          “[M]ost of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues.”

          “Many of such complaints are not bona fide.”

          “At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized.”

          “At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant.”

          “Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement.”

           “Misuse of the law causes ‘uncalled for hardship.’”

          “[V]iolation of human rights of innocent cannot be brushed aside”

The Court also cited figures which showed that in 2012 197,762 people were arrested under Section 498A; one-quarter were woman, meaning that they primarily were mothers or sisters of the husband; that 93.6% of arrests resulted in charge-sheet filings; and that “the conviction rate was at a staggering low at 14.4% only.” In 2013 the conviction rate of such cases “was also a staggering low at 15.6%,” and that while 466,079 such cases were pending at the start of 2013, only 53,641 cases were concluded during the year.

For these reasons, the Supreme Court issued a series of significant remedial steps that were intended to limit the abusive use of Section 498A. In particular, the guidelines precluded any arrest of a husband or his family members unless and until the charges have been independently reviewed and approved.

However, less than three months later, in the case of Nyayadhar v. Union of India, another bench of the Supreme Court, headed by the Chief Justice, stated that, “we are not in agreement with the decision rendered in Rajesh Sharma (supra) because we are disposed to think that it really curtails the rights of the women who are harassed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. That apart, prima facie, we perceive that the guidelines may be in the legislative sphere.” The Court named certain senior counsel to serve as amici curiae to assist the Court in the resolution of the case, and further rulings in the case are expected.

Unfortunately, the debate in India – which has now clearly divided the Supreme Court itself – has too often been formulated in black-and-white terms as a dispute between men and women. The issue should not be presented in all-or-nothing terms. Domestic violence is abusive and should be criminalized, but the crime should not protect only one gender, and the use of a criminal statute to abuse, harass and blackmail should not be permitted.

The status quo is simply absurd. As an international family lawyer who represents both men and women of Indian origin, I have handled several matters in which wives of Indian origin living outside India have used the “498A” law to effectively bar their estranged husbands, also living outside India, from traveling to India to attempt to secure the return of their abducted children or to defend themselves against financial claims and custodial claims asserted in Indian matrimonial proceedings. In most such occasions, the wives had ample ability in the courts in the place of the matrimonial residence to obtain protection against domestic violence, to seek an order of custody over children, and to seek financial relief against the other spouses. However, the “498A” procedure is far more attractive because it is so easily available and can be so devastating in its impact.

It is encouraging that the issue is being actively considered in India and it is to be hoped that a better balance can be reached. As it is, the abuse of the 498A process is justifiably a matter of grave concern for Indian husbands and husbands of Indian origin wherever they might be living, and for their families living in India. 

The American Bar Association’s Section of International Law will hold its “Fall Meeting” at the Grosvenor House Hotel, Park Lane, London, England from October 3 – 6, 2007.

A session entitled “International Family Law for the Globetrotting Executive” will be held on Thursday, October 4, 2007 from 4:00pm to 5:30pm chaired by Jeremy D. Morley, attorney-at-law in New York City, with presentations from him, Anne-Marie Hutchinson, OBE (Dawson Cornwell, London) and Suzanne Kingston (Dawsons, London).

Description: Complex international family law issues are an occupational hazard for globetrotting executives. International travel is great for business and pleasure but terrible for marital stability. A globetrotter’s legal adviser is expected to have hard data and brilliant strategic advice at the ready but in the real world accurate information and useful “big picture” advice is hard to find. In this fast-moving program, some of the world’s leading experts on international family law will provide practical, useful and straightforward advice concerning:

· International prenuptial agreements;

· Strategic international divorce planning;

· International divorce jurisdiction;

· Which law governs the international divorce?

· International child custody and international child abduction.

· An international family lawyer’s “Top Tips for the Globetrotting Executive.”

All are welcome.

We are very pleased that, working with local counsel Jean-Paul Gallelli, we have secured the return of our client’s child from California to Brazil under the Hague Abduction Convention, pursuant to a successful application to the Superior Court in Los Angeles.

Problems arising from void or voidable marriages often do not create issues until many years after the fact and in quite expected ways.

Such was the experience of one Kanadi Mohamed Ali, an Israeli citizen whose conviction for knowingly making a false statement under oath relating to naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1015(a) has just been upheld by the Sixth Circuit.USA v. Ali.

Defendant married Wife #1 in Montreal, Canada. After they separated the Montreal Superior Court mailed him a “Declaration” of divorce written in French. He later claimed that he thought it was a divorce judgment but it was apparently merely a pleading in a divorce case. He then married Wife #2 in Georgia, USA. Subsequently the Montreal Superior Court entered a “Judgment of Divorce” finalizing the divorce between Ali and Wife #1 and Ali then remarried Wife #2 in Tennessee.

Seven years later Ali applied for naturalization. A question on his application form, in a section entitled “Good Moral Character,” asked, “Have you ever: . . . [b]een married to more than one person at the same time?” He answered “no”.

In a handwritten attachment to the application, Ali disclosed his marriage and divorce to Wife #1 and his second marriage to Wife #2 in Tennessee but he did not mention his first “marriage” to Wife #2. When charged with making a false statement he asserted that under Georgia and Tennessee law, his first attempted marriage to Wife #2 was void ab initio and that, therefore, he was never actually “married” to her while still married to Wife #1. The Sixth Circuit held that although the first purported marriage to the second wife was indeed void ab initio under both Georgia and Tennessee law, a truthful person would not have answered “no” to the question. Furthermore, Ali’s asserted defense would nullify all criminal bigamy laws by giving a defendant charged with bigamy a foolproof defense – that he could not have, as a matter of law, committed bigamy because his attempted second marriage was automatically void.

Seems harsh to me but it serves as a warning who take these issues too lightly. Likewise, people who obtain a Dominican divorce even though neither they nor their spouse is domiciled in the Dominican Republic often feel that they have “beaten the system” only to discover years later that they have a serious problem when they cannot establish that they are divorced and they wish to re-marry or apply for a spousal visa.

Jeremy D. Morley

Common law marriages are alive and well in Israel. 

They are increasingly popular as a means of circumventing the religious monopoly on civil marriage in that country. 

The religious control over civil marriage in Israel, and the accompanying restrictions imposed by the ultra-orthodox rabbinate and other religious authorities, is a key factor behind the growth of common law marriage.

To qualify as a spouse in a common law marriage under Israeli law, it is simply necessary to establish the existence of a common household with cohabitation as a family unit between two adults of any religion, nationality or gender,

Some couples who establish a common law marriage in Israel enter into a written agreement defining the terms of their relationship. Other couples have a wedding ceremony but without a religious officiant, knowing that, since religious marriage is the exclusive way to be formally married in Israel, their relationship will be not be accepted as a legal marriage by the State of Israel.  Other couples simply live together as a common household unit. 

Common law couples have mutual rights and obligations to each other that are very similar to those of a married couple. They include the right to alimony, to pension funds of a deceased partner and to a division of assets accumulated during the relationship. The children of a common law couple have the same legal rights as the children of married parents. They can carry their mother’s or father’s family name, or both names. Their parents have the same status as married parents with regard to custody issues and support, even when the issues are brought to the rabbinical court. 

The parties to a common law marriage may be of the same or of different sexes. They may choose a common name, simply by submitting a Name Change form to the Interior Ministry.

Upon the death of a common law spouse, the surviving spouse usually continues to receive full compensation and pensions. It has even been held that a married man who lived with another woman in a shared household was deemed to have two widows upon his death.

Many Israeli common law couples obtain domestic union cards, issued by advocacy groups upon the submission of an affidavit describing the relationship, in order to confirm their common law status. However, common law relationships are not registered by the Interior Ministry and the formal personal status of the partners remains ‘single.’

One wonders whether the growth of de facto marriages in Israel, along with the long-standing practice of couples flying to Cyprus or other foreign destinations for an actual civil marriage, will ultimately dilute the religious monopoly over civil marriage in Israel, or strengthen the division between extreme religious orthodoxy and secular society in that country.  

The following are excerpts, without footnotes, of an article published in the Judges’ Newsletter on International Child Protection Vol. XX, Summer – Autumn 2013.

The full article is available on the website of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

Concentration of Jurisdiction under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction: Australia

By The Honourable Diana BRYANT AO, Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia and The Honourable Justice Victoria Bennett of the Family Court of Australia

…

Judicial structure and operation of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention

Family law cases are heard by the Family Court of Australia, which is the superior court of record, and the Federal Circuit Court,  which is the trial court. The Family Court of Australia is a specialised court comprising the Chief Justice, the Honourable Justice Diana Bryant, the Deputy Chief Justice and 31 Judges. It sits directly below our supreme court, the High Court of Australia (which comprises the Chief Justice and 6 Justices). The Family Court hears appeals and cases of long duration or of such complexity as renders the case unsuitable for determination by the trial court.

Pursuant to a Protocol between the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court, all Hague abduction cases are dealt with by the Family Court of Australia as are international relocation cases. Accordingly, in Australia jurisdiction to hear abduction cases at first instance is concentrated to 23 justices of the general or trial division of the Family Court. An appeal from the first instance decision lies to the Appeal Division of the Family Court comprised of three judges often comprised of two Appeal Division judges and a judge from the General Division. An appeal from a decision of the Full Court of the Family Court to the High Court of Australia requires leave of the High Court. To date, leave has been sought in 19 Hague abduction cases but granted in only six.

 The Commonwealth Central Authority in Australia for the 1980 Child Abduction Convention is the same as the Central Authority for the 1996 Child Protection Convention work and is a person appointed within the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department. Another person is appointed to be the Central Authority for the work of the 1993 Adoption Convention. The Commonwealth Attorney-General designates a person in each of the States and Territories to be the State Central Authority for the 1980 Child Abduction Convention work within that State. This is usually the secretary or head of the state’s child welfare department. Accordingly, a State Central Authority has at its disposal the services of trained child protection workers, emergency accommodation and a working relationship with the police. Through the Commonwealth Central Authority, the State Central Authorities have access to some official records, such as immigration records from which it can be determined when a child entered or departed Australia as well as social security payments.

Abduction applications are prosecuted by the State Central Authority. The left behind parent is not required to pay for the costs of the prosecution (Article 26). A left behind parent may prosecute their own case, to the exclusion of the State Central Authority, but it is most unusual. Accordingly, almost every abduction case is prosecuted by a model litigant who has extensive experience in Hague abduction cases. This results in a concentration of expertise in prosecution work. Unlike some other Contracting States, legal aid bodies in Australia do not maintain a panel of specialist lawyers whom they will fund to act for abducting parents to defend the application. Accordingly, the standard of defence work is varied. Where a child is represented in a Hague abduction proceeding, which is exceptional, that representation is funded by the legal aid authority of the state or territory in which the child is located. It is the authors’ experience that, within our state of Victoria, independent children’s lawyers have extensive experience in international child abduction matters and a personal commitment to undertake the work to a high standard. Skilled representation of the child’s interest is essential where an abducting parent fails or neglects to raise an issue for determination such as the jurisdictional facts of habitual residence or right of custody or an exception to return.

Benefits resulting from concentration of jurisdiction

By concentrating jurisdiction to hear Hague abduction applications to the superior, specialist court, hearings can be allocated more quickly and case managed more directionally than they can be in the high volume trial court.

Case management and the ability to expedite the hearing of abduction applications are important because our supreme court, the High Court of Australia, has eschewed

a purely summary determination of return applications.

Consequently, it is not uncommon for a final hearing to run for between 1 and 3 days and involve commissioning reports by social scientists, other expert evidence and taking cross examination from overseas outside court sitting hours.

We find that the other benefits of the concentration of jurisdiction are:-

• the efficiency with which judicial education about recent developments within the Hague community as well as recent decisions in other Contracting States can be delivered;

• the ability to familiarise our judges with the operation of the International Hague Network of Judges and the ability to facilitate general or direct (case specific) judicial communications between our court and the relevant judge in the Contracting State of habitual residence via the International Hague Network of Judges. This is particularly valuable to implement conditions for return, schedule a preliminary hearing in the home State and other safe harbour measures;

• the ease of delivery of information about mediation of abduction cases within our jurisdiction. This specialised mediation must be facilitated, if it is to be facilitated at all, at very short notice so as to not delay any judicial determination of the case. It is usually only available through a small number of service providers who can operate at minimal or no financial cost to the participants and who can provide a co-mediator in each Contracting State (eg. International Social Service) or who have the technology to convene the required number of sessions (often three) through audio visual connectivity;

• as a superior court of record, it should be apparent to the courts of other Contracting States that any determination of our Family Court is authoritative and not prone to reversal by multiple rulings after further contests in higher courts. The authoritative nature of our determinations aids enforcement, Article 15 requests and direct judicial communications around conditions for return and safe harbour measures.

We appreciate the benefits of the determination of Hague abduction cases being concentrated in our one specialist and superior court. Likewise, we appreciate the relative ease of dealing with other Contracting States who have, over the last 20 or so years, taken the significant but very constructive step of concentrating jurisdiction to determine these cases to a specific court or level of court within that State. Most respectfully, our experience is that in Contracting States where jurisdiction is concentrated, the 1980 Child Abduction Convention is implemented with a higher degree of cohesion between the executive and judicial arms of government and the judicial determinations from the courts in those States around core concepts of habitual residence, rights of custody and, say, grave risk of harm are more consistent and more timely than those which emanate from States where jurisdiction is diffuse.

Country Summary: Jordan does not adhere to any protocols with respect to international parental child abduction. In 2006, the United States and Jordan signed a Memorandum of Understanding to encourage voluntary resolution of abduction cases and facilitate consular access to abducted children. In 2018, Jordan demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance. Specifically, the competent authorities in Jordan persistently failed to work with the Department of State to resolve abduction cases. As a result of this failure, 67 percent of requests for the return of abducted children remained unresolved for more than 12 months. On average, these cases were unresolved for two years and seven months. Jordan was previously cited for demonstrating a pattern of noncompliance in the 2014-2018 Annual Reports.

Initial Inquiries: In 2018, the Department received eight initial inquiries from parents regarding possible abductions to Jordan for which no additional assistance was requested or necessary documentation was not received as of December 31, 2018.

Significant Developments: In 2018, the Government of Jordan began offering mediation services to parents involved in international parental child abductions through the Family Mediation Directorate. Mediation is voluntary, and both parents must agree to participate. The United States is not aware of any abductions cases that were resolved through this service in 2018. 

Central Authority: In 2018, the competent authorities in Jordan discussed with the United States ways to improve the resolution of pending abduction cases. However, the competent authorities have failed to resolve cases due to a lack of viable legal options, which contributed to a pattern of noncompliance.

Voluntary Resolution: In 2018, four abduction cases were resolved through voluntary means. Location: The Department of State did not request assistance with location from the Jordanian authorities. 

Judicial Authorities: The United States is not aware of any abduction cases brought before the Jordanian judiciary in 2018. Enforcement: The United States is not aware of any abduction cases in which a judicial order relating to international parental child abduction needed to be enforced by the Jordanian authorities.

Department Recommendations: The Department will continue to encourage Jordan to accede to the Convention.

Country Summary:

The Convention has been in force between the United States and Ecuador since 1992. In 2017, Ecuador demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance. Specifically, Ecuador’s judicial branch and law enforcement authorities regularly failed to implement and comply with the provisions of the Convention. As a result of this failure, 13 percent (one case involving one child) of requests for the return of abducted children under the Convention remained unresolved for more than 12 months. More specifically, this case has been unresolved for four years and 11 months. Ecuador has been cited for noncompliance since 2015. The Ecuadorian Central Authority moved from the Ministry of Economic and Social Inclusion to the Ministry of Justice in June 2017, and a new director was appointed in mid-November 2017.

Report of Actions Taken: 

The Department has reinforced efforts urging Ecuador to improve its Convention implementation. In January 2018, the USCA increased the frequency of digital video conferences with the Ecuadorian Central Authority, Ecuadorian law enforcement officials, and the Public Defender’s Office to monthly meetings. During these conferences, participants discussed case updates and strategies on improving implementation of the Convention in Ecuador. Such conferences also increased understanding among the different offices involved in abduction cases in Ecuador and therefore improved communication, coordination, and cooperation. The Department also plans to invite Ecuadorian officials to participate in a new International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) tentatively scheduled for summer 2018. The IVLP will specifically address the judicial components of processing and resolving Convention abduction cases.

In June 2018, U.S. Embassy Quito delivered a demarche to the Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Relations, giving official notice that the Department cited Ecuador for demonstrating a pattern of noncompliance.