Thursday, June 29, 2017

Country Report: Egypt


The U.S. State Department has just issued its 2017 Annual Report on International Parental Child Abduction under the International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act (ICAPRA). The following is the Country Summary and related information for Egypt:
Country Summary: Egypt does not adhere to any protocols with respect to international parental child abduction, and left-behind parents of children abducted to Egypt have limited options to resolve their cases. Voluntary Agreements are the primary means for obtaining the return of children from Egypt. In 2003, the United States and Egypt signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to encourage voluntary resolution of abduction cases and facilitate consular access to abducted children. While Egypt was cited for non-compliance in the 2016 report, last year Egypt expanded its engagement with the United States under the existing MOU, and worked with the Department of State to resolve more abduction cases. During 2016, resolutions increased to four times the number of the previous year reflecting a pattern of improvement.

Significant Developments: During 2016, Egyptian authorities engaged extensively with the United States to review methods for resolving cases, and expressed interest in expanding cooperation between our two countries. Egypt's Ministry of Foreign Affairs was an active interlocutor regarding abduction issues and pressed for creation of a new inter-ministerial committee to consider Egypt’s possible ratification of the Hague Abduction Convention. Officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Justice Ministry met frequently with U.S. Embassy staff in Cairo to discuss individual abduction cases. Egyptian authorities successfully mediated in one case to facilitate a U.S. father’s access to his sons in Egypt.
Central Authority: In 2016, the competent authorities in Egypt worked closely with the United States to discuss improvements to the resolution of pending abduction cases. However, the options for resolving these cases under Egyptian law are limited. Successful mediation by a subcommittee of the Ministry of Justice resulted in voluntary agreements in some cases. We believe this subcommittee has the capacity to expand its role in this regard and could play a greater role in providing left-behind parents with information regarding possible legal remedies in Egypt.
Voluntary Resolution: In 2016, four abduction cases were resolved through voluntary means.
Location: The Department of State did not request assistance with location from the Egyptian authorities.
Judicial Authorities: While some abduction cases were resolved by the Egyptian courts, the lack of clear legal procedures for addressing international parental child abduction cases under Egyptian law made it very difficult for Egypt to address these cases.
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 Egyptian authorities. Department
Recommendations: The Department will continue to encourage Egypt to join the Convention and expand public diplomacy activities related to the Convention. The Department also recommends an emphasis on preventing abductions.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Country Report: Colombia


The U.S. State Department has just issued its 2017 Annual Report on International Parental Child Abduction under the International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act (ICAPRA). The following is the Country Summary and related information for Colombia:
Country Summary: The United States and Colombia have been partners under the Hague Abduction Convention since 1996. Colombia was cited for non-compliance in the 2015 and 2016 reports.

Significant Developments: As of January 1, 2016, a procedural change limited the number of times a Convention case can be appealed. Prior to this change, some cases were delayed by numerous appeals.
Central Authority: The United States and the Colombian Central Authority have a strong and productive relationship that facilitates the resolution of cases under the Convention.
Voluntary Resolution: The Convention states that central authorities “shall take all appropriate measures to secure the voluntary return of the child or to bring about an amicable resolution of the issues.” In 2016, one abduction case was resolved through voluntary means.
Location: The competent authorities regularly took appropriate steps to help locate a child after a Convention application was filed. On average, it took less than one week to locate a child.
Judicial Authorities: Judicial processes caused delays in some cases during 2016.
Enforcement: Decisions in Convention cases in Colombia were generally enforced in a timely manner.
Access: In 2016, the U.S. Central Authority acted on a total of two open access cases under the Convention in Colombia. Of these, one case was opened in 2016. While no cases were resolved by December 31, 2016, one was closed for other reasons. By December 31, 2016, one access case remained open. No cases were pending with the Colombian authorities for more than 12 months. Department
Recommendations: The Department and the Colombian Central Authority will continue the effective processing and resolution of cases under the Convention.

Friday, June 23, 2017

Michigan’s Child Custody Law Concerning International Children Violates Fundamental Principles of Human Rights


Jeremy D. Morley
In 2013, Michigan enacted a law that provides that, unless both parents expressly consent, “a parenting time order shall contain a prohibition on exercising parenting time in a country that is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.”
Prior to its enactment I opined that although the proposed legislation was a well-intended effort to prevent international child abduction, it was poorly drafted and overly simplistic. Specifically:
          -Not every country that is a party to the Hague Convention complies with the terms of the treaty. Thus, the U.S. State Department’s most recent Annual Report on International Child Abduction identifies ten countries that are “noncompliant” with the treaty.
          -Not every country that is a party to the Convention has been accepted by the United States as a treaty partner. For example, although Russia and the Philippines are parties to the treaty they are not U.S. treaty partners with respect to it.
          -Not every country that has failed to sign the treaty will fail to return abducted children. For example, even before it acceded to the Convention, Singapore had established an excellent record of returning internationally-abducted children.
I further explained that the statute would apparently bar the relocation of a child to any non-Hague country. It could therefore preclude a court from allowing an abandoned and impecunious foreign parent who is a victim of extreme domestic violence to return to her home country with her child. 
A recent decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals, Elahham v. Al-Jabban, 2017 WL 942997 (Court of Appeals of Michigan, 2017), highlights the problem. In that case, the appeal court upheld an award of sole custody of a child’s the father in Michigan that was based solely on the fact that the mother lived with the child in Egypt, which is a non-Hague country.
The trial court did not consider the best interests of the child. The award of custody to the father was based solely upon a strict interpretation of the Michigan statute barring the issuance of an order giving any parenting time to any parent in any non-Hague country.
Although the father had apparently claimed that the child had been taken to Egypt without his consent, the child had lived in Egypt for a considerable period of time. However, none of these issues were considered. The Court of Appeal simply ruled that, “the trial court correctly concluded that it could not award physical custody of the minor child to plaintiff because the statute precludes the court from granting parenting time in a country that is not a party to the Hague Convention, unless the other parent agrees in writing.”
It is now well established that it is a basic human right of both parents and children that the “best interests of the child” standard should be a primary consideration in all actions taken concerning children, including actions by social welfare institutions, courts, administrative authorities, and legislative bodies. Unfortunately, the Michigan law, as has now been interpreted by the Michigan Court of Appeal, operates in derogation of that standard.
Indeed, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act expressly provides that U.S. courts are not obliged to treat a foreign country as if it were a U.S. state of the United “if the child-custody law of a foreign country violates fundamental principles of human rights.” Applying that provision, a court in the state of Washington has previously ruled -- based on my expert evidence that the child custody law of Egypt is based on arbitrary rules of age, gender and religion, rather than on the best interests of children -- that Egyptian custody laws  violate fundamental principles of human rights.
But the same principle surely applies with equal force to Michigan’s own child custody law. Instead of making a decision based on the best interests of the child, the Michigan Court of Appeals has now ruled that custody of a minor child who is located in another country will be based exclusively on the issue of whether or not that country has signed the Convention. Such a mandate is arbitrary and capricious and is in plain violation of the human rights of the child and of the parent who is deprived of custody.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Country Report: China


The U.S. State Department has just issued its 2017 Annual Report on International Parental Child Abduction under the International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act (ICAPRA). The following is the Country Summary and related information for China:
Country Summary: China does not adhere to any protocols with respect to international parental child abduction.
Central Authority: In 2016, the competent authorities in China periodically declined to communicate or work with the Department of State to resolve pending abduction cases. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was slow to respond to a diplomatic request for assistance with the resolution of existing cases. Moreover, authorities did not discuss the larger issue of international parental child abduction nor address remedies for left-behind parents in general.
Location: The Department of State did not request assistance with location from the Chinese authorities.
Judicial Authorities: The United States is not aware of any abduction cases brought before the Chinese judiciary in 2016.
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 Chinese authorities.
Department Recommendations: The Department will continue to encourage China to accede to the Convention and expand diplomacy activities related to the Convention. The Department also recommends an emphasis on preventing abductions.

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Country Report: Pakistan


The U.S. State Department has just issued its 2017 Annual Report on International Parental Child Abduction under the International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act (ICAPRA). The following is the Country Summary and related information for Pakistan:
Country Summary: During 2016, Pakistan did not adhere to any protocols with respect to international parental child abduction. While Pakistan acceded to the Convention in 2016, it is not a treaty partner with the United States. As a result, there is no formal mechanism for resolving cases under the Convention at this time. Pakistan was cited for non-compliance in the 2015 and 2016 reports.
Significant Developments: In December 2016, Pakistan acceded to the Hague Abduction Convention, and the Convention entered into force on March 1, 2017. The United States is engaged in discussions with the Pakistan government regarding partnering under the Convention. Central Authority: The United States and the competent authorities in Pakistan had regular and productive discussions on the best ways to resolve pending abduction cases under Pakistani law, and the Pakistani government took steps to resolve such cases.
Voluntary Resolution: In 2016, three abduction cases were resolved through voluntary means.
Location: The Department of State did not request assistance with location from the Pakistani authorities.
Judicial Authorities: The United States is not aware of any abduction cases brought before the Pakistani judiciary in 2016.
Enforcement: Custody decisions made by Pakistani courts were generally enforced in a timely manner.
Department Recommendations: The Department will continue to engage with Pakistani government officials regarding potential partnership. The Department also recommends an emphasis on preventing abductions.

Friday, June 16, 2017

Noncompliant Countries: Tunisia


The U.S. State Department has just issued its 2017 Annual Report on International Parental Child Abduction under the International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act (ICAPRA). The following is the Country Summary and related information from the thirteenth country listed as “Noncompliant” in the report, Tunisia:

Country Summary: Tunisia does not adhere to any protocols with respect to international parental child abduction. In 2016, Tunisia demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance. Specifically, the competent authorities in Tunisia failed to work with us to successfully resolve open cases. As a result of this failure, 50 percent of requests for the return of abducted children have remained unresolved for more than 12 months. On average these cases have been unresolved for more than 4 years. Tunisia has been cited as non-compliant since 2014.

Central Authority: In 2016, the competent authorities in Tunisia worked closely with the United States to discuss ways to improve the resolution of pending abduction cases. Nonetheless, none of the pending abduction cases were able to reach resolution through the Tunisian legal system in 2016. Moreover, the competent authorities repeatedly failed to reply to requests from the Department of State to explain Tunisia’s system of law regarding IPCA cases.
Location: The Department of State did not request assistance with location from the Tunisian authorities.

Judicial Authorities: While some abduction cases were adjudicated in favor of the U.S. citizen left-behind parent, the lack of clear legal procedures for addressing international parental child abduction cases under Tunisian law makes it very difficult for Tunisia to address these cases successfully.
Enforcement: Judicial decisions in IPCA cases in Tunisia were not enforced unless the taking parent voluntarily complied with a local court order. Moreover, there were two cases (accounting for 100 percent of the cases filed with the FCA) where Tunisian law enforcement authorities have failed to enforce a court order for over two years.
Department Recommendations: The Department will continue its efforts to persuade Tunisia to accede to the Convention. The Department also recommends an emphasis on preventing abductions.

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Noncompliant Countries: Romania


The U.S. State Department has just issued its 2017 Annual Report on International Parental Child Abduction under the International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act (ICAPRA). The following is the Country Summary and related information from the twelfth country listed as “Noncompliant” in the report, Romania:
Country Summary: The United States and Romania have been partners under the Hague Abduction Convention since 1993. In 2016, Romania demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance. Specifically, the law enforcement authorities in Romania persistently failed to implement and abide by the provisions of the Hague Abduction Convention. For example, in one case the authorities have failed to enforce a return order that was issued in 2011. Romania has been cited as non-compliant since 2015.
Central Authority: While the United States and the Romanian Central Authority have a cooperative relationship, periodic delays in the processing of cases and inconsistent communication impacted the timely resolution of Convention cases.
Voluntary Resolution: The Convention states that central authorities “shall take all appropriate measures to secure the voluntary return of the child or to bring about an amicable resolution of the issues.” In 2016, one abduction case was resolved through voluntary means.
Location: The competent authorities took appropriate steps to help locate a child after a Convention application was filed. On average, it took less than one week to locate a child. In one case, however, the children disappeared after the initial location effort and it took the authorities several months to locate them.
Judicial Authorities: The judicial authorities of Romania routinely reached timely decisions in accordance with the Convention.
Enforcement: Judicial decisions in Convention cases in Romania were not enforced unless the taking parent voluntarily complied with a return order. In addition, if the child expressed a desire to remain with the taking parent, authorities were not able to enforce judicial decisions in Convention cases.
Access: In 2016, there were no open access cases.
Department Recommendations: The Department will intensify engagement with the Romanian authorities to address significant issues of concern and expand public diplomacy activities related to the resolution of cases. The Department also recommends an emphasis on preventing abductions.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Noncompliant Countries: Peru


The U.S. State Department has just issued its 2017 Annual Report on International Parental Child Abduction under the International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act (ICAPRA). The following is the Country Summary and related information from the eleventh country listed as “Noncompliant” in the report, Peru:
Country Summary: The United States and Peru have been partners under the Hague Abduction Convention since 2007. In 2016, Peru demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance. Specifically, the judicial authorities in Peru persistently failed to implement and abide by the provisions of the Hague Abduction Convention. As a result of this failure, 28 percent of requests for the return of abducted children under the Convention have remained unresolved for more than 12 months. On average these cases have been unresolved for 27 months. Peru has been cited as non-compliant since 2014.

Central Authority: The Peruvian Central Authority gave the United States regular updates on all open cases, and conducted a bi-monthly conference call with the U.S. Central Authority. While the relationship with the Peruvian Central Authority is strong and productive, the United States is concerned that Peru is unable to resolve cases in a timely manner, and urges the Peruvian authorities to take appropriate steps to address this situation.
Voluntary Resolution: The Convention states that central authorities “shall take all appropriate measures to secure the voluntary return of the child or to bring about an amicable resolution of the issues.” In 2016, four abduction cases were resolved through voluntary means. The Peruvian Central Authority began all cases with an appeal for the parties to resolve cases voluntarily.

Location: In some cases, the competent authorities delayed taking appropriate steps to help locate a child after a Convention application was filed. The average time to locate a child was 39 days. The location efforts of the Peruvian Central Authority generally improved throughout 2016.
Judicial Authorities: The Peruvian judicial authorities demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance with the Convention through serious delays in deciding Convention cases. Convention cases were not heard expeditiously but instead waited with all other civil cases for hearings. Cases are generally pending with the judiciary for almost three years. In addition, there was a strike in the judicial system in 2016 which further slowed the scheduling of hearings.
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 Peruvian authorities.
Access: In 2016, the U.S. Central Authority had one open access case under the Convention in Peru. This case was opened in 2016. By December 31, 2016, this case remained open. No cases were pending with the Peruvian authorities for more than 12 months.
Department Recommendations: The Department will intensify engagement with the Peruvian authorities to address significant issues of concern and expand public diplomacy activities related to the resolution of cases. The Department will also encourage training with judicial and administrative authorities on the effective handling of international parental child abduction cases. The Department also recommends an emphasis on preventing abductions.

Monday, June 12, 2017

Noncompliant Countries: Panama


The U.S. State Department has just issued its 2017 Annual Report on International Parental Child Abduction under the International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act (ICAPRA). The following is the Country Summary and related information from the tenth country listed as “Noncompliant” in the report, Panama:
Country Summary: The United States and Panama have been partners under the Hague Abduction Convention since 1994. In 2016, Panama demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance. Specifically, the judicial authorities in Panama persistently failed to implement and abide by the provisions of the Hague Abduction Convention. As a result of this failure, 100 percent of requests for the return of abducted children under the Convention have remained unresolved for more than 12 months. On average these cases have been unresolved for 45 months.

Central Authority: While the relationship with the Panamanian Central Authority is strong and productive, the United States is concerned that Panama is unable to resolve cases in a timely manner, and urges the Panamanian authorities to take appropriate steps to address this situation.
Location: The Department of State did not request assistance with location from the Panamanian authorities.

Judicial Authorities: The Panamanian judicial authorities demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance with the Convention due to serious delays in deciding Convention cases. Panamanian judges frequently requested psychological and socio-economic evaluations, which impeded prompt resolutions in Convention cases. Cases are generally pending with the judiciary for more than two years.
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 Panamanian authorities.
Access: In 2016, there were no open access cases.
Department Recommendations: The Department will intensify engagement with the Panamanian authorities to address significant issues of concern and expand public diplomacy activities related to the resolution of cases. The Department will also promote training with judicial and administrative authorities on the effective handling of international parental child abduction cases. The Department also recommends an emphasis on preventing abductions.

Friday, June 09, 2017

Noncompliant Countries: Nicaragua

The U.S. State Department has just issued its 2017 Annual Report on International Parental Child Abduction under the International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act (ICAPRA). The following is the Country Summary and related information from the ninth country listed as “Noncompliant” in the report, Nicaragua:
Country Summary: Nicaragua acceded to the Convention in 2001. However, Nicaragua is not a treaty partner with the United States. As a result, there is no formal mechanism for resolving cases under the Convention at this time. In 2016, Nicaragua demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance. Specifically, the competent authorities in Nicaragua persistently failed to work with the Department of State to resolve abduction cases. As a result of this failure, 33 percent of requests for the return of abducted children have remained unresolved for more than 12 months. On average these cases have been unresolved for 24 months. Nicaragua has been cited as non-compliant since 2014.

Central Authority: In 2016, the competent authorities in Nicaragua demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance by regularly declining to work toward the resolution of pending abduction cases. Specifically, the Nicaraguan government was not responsive to diplomatic communication requesting assistance for cases involving abducted children in 2016.
Location: The competent authorities regularly took appropriate steps to help locate a child after the United States submitted a request for assistance. The average time to locate a child was 11 days. Although law enforcement has made serious efforts to locate a child in one case, the child was not located in 2016. 

Judicial Authorities: The United States is not aware of any abduction cases brought before the Nicaraguan judiciary in 2016. 
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 Nicaraguan authorities. 
Department Recommendations: The Department will intensify its engagement with Nicaraguan government officials regarding potential partnership. The Department also recommends an emphasis on preventing abductions.

Wednesday, June 07, 2017

Noncompliant Countries: Jordan


The U.S. State Department has just issued its 2017 Annual Report on International Parental Child Abduction under the International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act (ICAPRA). The following is the Country Summary and related information from the eighth country listed as “Noncompliant” in the report, Jordan:
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 2016, Jordan demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance. The United States formally notified the Jordanian government of nine abduction cases in January of 2016. These cases have been open for an average of four and a half years, with the longest open for more than 12 years. Jordanian authorities have not responded to the U.S. request for assistance in resolving these abduction cases. Jordan has been cited as non-compliant since 2014.

Central Authority: In 2016, the competent authorities in Jordan demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance by regularly declining to work toward the resolution of pending abduction cases. Jordanian authorities have not responded to applications for assistance with the return of children presented to them in 2016. Further, authorities have not discussed the larger issue of international parental child abduction nor addressed remedies for left-behind parents in general.
Voluntary Resolution: In 2016, three abduction cases were resolved through voluntary means. Location: The Department of State did not formally request assistance with location from the Jordanian authorities.

Judicial Authorities: The Department is aware of three cases where left-behind parents sought remedies through Jordanian courts. In two cases, the left-behind parents sought and were granted temporary access orders while they worked to affect the return of their children to their habitual residences. In another case, the left-behind parent started custody proceedings in Jordanian courts, which are still ongoing.
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 its efforts to persuade Jordan to accede to the Convention and expand public diplomacy activities related to the resolution of cases. The Department also recommends an emphasis on preventing abductions.

Tuesday, June 06, 2017

Noncompliant Countries: India


The U.S. State Department has just issued its 2017 Annual Report on International Parental Child Abduction under the International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act (ICAPRA). The following is the Country Summary and related information from the seventh country listed as “Noncompliant” in the report, India:
Country Summary: India does not adhere to any protocols with respect to international parental child abduction. In 2016, India demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance. Specifically, the competent authorities in India persistently failed to work with the Department of State to resolve abduction cases. As a result of this failure, 66 percent of requests for the return of abducted children have remained unresolved for more than 12 months. India has been cited as non-compliant since 2014.

Central Authority: In 2016, the competent authorities in India demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance by regularly declining to work with the Department of State toward the resolution of pending abduction cases. The Indian authorities have not responded to applications for assistance with the return of children presented to them in 2016. Moreover, the competent authorities failed to resolve cases due to a lack of viable legal options. While the Indian government repeatedly met with U.S. officials to discuss abduction cases, it persistently failed to take concrete steps to resolve pending cases.
Voluntary Resolution: In 2016, five abduction cases were resolved through voluntary means. Most returns of abducted children from India to the United States were the result of voluntary agreements between parents.

Location: The Department of State did not request assistance with location from the Indian authorities.
Judicial Authorities: Without the Hague Abduction Convention or any other protocols intended to resolve abduction cases, parents generally must pursue custody of abducted children in Indian courts. Judicial action in custody cases in India has been slow, and Indian courts tend to default to granting custody to the taking parent. Absent any clear legal procedures for specifically addressing abduction cases under Indian law, parents’ efforts to resolve custody disputes in local courts were often unsuccessful.
Enforcement: While most left-behind parents faced significant delays and difficulties in obtaining favorable custody decisions in Indian courts, custody decisions were generally enforced in a timely manner.
Department Recommendations: The Department will intensify its efforts to persuade India to accede to the Convention and expand public diplomacy activities related to the resolution of cases. The Department also recommends an emphasis on preventing abductions.

Monday, June 05, 2017

Noncompliant Countries: Guatemala


The U.S. State Department has just issued its 2017 Annual Report on International Parental Child Abduction under the International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act (ICAPRA). The following is the Country Summary and related information from the sixth country listed as “Noncompliant” in the report, Guatemala:
Country Summary: The United States and Guatemala have been partners under the Hague Abduction Convention since 2008. In 2016, Guatemala demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance. Specifically, the Guatemalan Central Authority and law enforcement authorities persistently failed to implement and abide by the provisions of the Hague Abduction Convention. The Guatemalan Central Authority has not sent Hague applications to the courts in a timely manner, and has provided some inaccurate updates to the U.S. Central Authority. These failures have resulted in serious delays in the processing of cases. Guatemala has been cited as non-compliant since 2011.
Central Authority: The Guatemalan Central Authority demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance with the Convention due to poor handling of cases and a lack of effective communication with the U.S. Central Authority regarding the resolution of cases. These failures have resulted in serious delays in the processing of cases.
Location: Guatemala demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance with the Convention evidenced by failure of the competent authorities to take appropriate steps to help locate a child after a Convention application was filed. The average time to locate a child was 18 months and 21 days.

Judicial Authorities: The United States is not aware of any abduction cases brought before the Guatemalan judiciary in 2016.
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 Guatemalan authorities.
Access: In 2016, the U.S. Central Authority had one open access case under the Convention in Guatemala. This case was opened in 2016. By December 31, 2016, this case (100 percent) was resolved.
Department Recommendations: The Department will intensify engagement with the Guatemalan authorities to address significant issues of concern and expand public diplomacy activities related to the resolution of cases. The Department will also encourage training with judicial and administrative authorities on the effective handling of international parental child abduction cases. The Department also recommends an emphasis on preventing abductions.

Thursday, June 01, 2017

Noncompliant Countries: Ecuador


The U.S. State Department has just issued its 2017 Annual Report on International Parental Child Abduction under the International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act (ICAPRA). The following is the Country Summary and related information from the fifth country listed as “Noncompliant” in the report, Ecuador:
Country Summary: The United States and Ecuador have been partners under the Hague Abduction Convention since 1992. In 2016, Ecuador demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance. While the Ecuadorian Central Authority improved its performance and responsiveness in 2016, the judicial and law enforcement authorities in Ecuador persistently failed to implement and abide by all of the provisions of the Hague Abduction Convention as evidenced by delays of over nine months in locating abducted children and judicial delays. As a result of this failure, 11 percent of requests for the return of abducted children under the Convention have remained unresolved for more than 12 months. On average these cases have been unresolved for 13 months. Ecuador has been cited as non-compliant since 2014.
Central Authority: While the United States and the Ecuadorian Central Authority have a cooperative relationship, periodic delays in the processing of cases and inconsistent communication impacted the timely resolution of Convention cases. In 2016, the Ecuadorian Central Authority improved its performance and responsiveness. However, the Department still encountered occasional delays in obtaining updates from the Authority.
Voluntary Resolution: The Convention states that central authorities “shall take all appropriate measures to secure the voluntary return of the child or to bring about an amicable resolution of the issues.” In 2016, two abduction cases were resolved through voluntary means.
Location: Ecuador demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance with the Convention as a result of failure by the competent authorities to promptly locate a child after a Convention application was filed. The average time to locate a child was nine months and 23 days. As of December 31, 2016, there were three cases where the Ecuadorian authorities had taken a lengthy period of time to locate abducted children. In one of the three cases, authorities have been unable to successfully locate a child since in January 2013. Ecuadorian authorities failed to conduct vigorous follow-up activities to locate children whose taking parents attempt to evade the police. In Ecuador, cases cannot proceed to court until the children's locations are confirmed.
Judicial Authorities: The Ecuadorian judicial authorities demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance with the Convention due to serious delays in serving summons on alleged taking parents. Cases are generally pending with the judiciary for more than 16 months.
Enforcement: Unless a parent voluntarily complied with a return order under the Convention, judicial decisions in Convention cases in Ecuador were generally not enforced. Moreover, there is one case (accounting for 11 percent of the total cases filed with the FCA) that has been pending for more than 12 months where law enforcement failed to locate the child.
Access: In 2016, there were no open access cases.
Department Recommendations: The Department will intensify engagement with the Ecuadorian authorities to address significant issues of concern and expand public diplomacy activities related to the resolution of cases. The Department will also encourage training with judicial and administrative authorities on the effective handling of international parental child abduction cases. The Department also recommends an emphasis on preventing abductions.