China-Conflict of Laws

China has now adopted its first law on the conflict of laws.

Chapter 3 deals with foreign-related marriage and divorce issues. However, Chapter One is also relevant to any such case.

Specifically with respect to divorce, the new law provides that if the parties themselves do not choose the law that will govern their divorce, the law of their common habitual residence shall be applied.

If there is no such common habitual residence, the law of their common nationality shall be applied or otherwise the law of the place where the agency responsible for completing the divorce formalities locates shall be applied.

Go to my website for the full text:

http://www.international-divorce.com/china-conflict-of-laws

International Pre-Nuptial Symposium

I will be speaking in London on international prenups at the event described below.

Speakers: Charlotte Butruille-Cardew, Nicholas Francis QC, Jeremy Morley, Geoff Wilson

Chairperson: David Salter

Location:  Charles Russell, 5 Fleet Place, LONDON EC4M 7RD

Date: 8 March 2011

http://www.jordanpublishing.co.uk/training-and-development/family-law/international-pre-nuptial-symposium

Accreditation/Professional Development
Solicitors Regulation Authority: 3 hours 15 minutes
ILEX: 3 hours 15 minutes
Bar Standards Board: 3 hours 

Get up-to-the minute information on domestic and international pre and post nuptial agreements including: 

• How to draft effective agreements
• Recognition and enforceability in the international arena
• A comparative review of international matrimonial property regimes
• A greater understanding of the principles underlying agreements
• How to opt out of the relevant marital property regime
• The limitations of such agreements  

Increasing numbers of international travellers, living and working abroad coupled with rising divorce rates, have led to an increase in the number of individuals entering into pre and post nuptial agreements to protect their assets on relationship breakdown.  This is an essential seminar for all ancillary relief lawyers advising high net worth individuals with international connections.  It will help you to cut through the complexities of domestic and foreign law so that you can deal more effectively with multi-jurisdictional issues when advising clients.    

The seminar will focus on the disparity in divorce laws in England and Wales, Australia, France and the USA in particular New York.  You will leave armed with the necessary strategy and know-how to provide up-to-date advice on capital division and spousal maintenance in international cases involving marital agreements. 

This experienced speaker team will walk you through considerations at the initial client interview, how to draft effective agreements through to recognition and enforceability.  They will highlight the complexities and pitfalls that arise at each stage of dealing with international pre and post nuptial agreements and satellite proceedings. 

An international seminar brought to you by Family Law in association with the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.  

What is included? 

• International guidance on best practice and current trends in pre and post nuptial agreements
• Unique course material developed especially for this event
• A review of international marital property regimes
• Comprehensive notes to refer to after the event
• Expert insight and analysis from a leading international speaker panel
• Plus! Attendees can purchase Family Law publications at a 20% discount 

Who should attend? 

Family lawyers and advocates advising clients with international connections 

Israel – Religious courts assert authority over dissolution of civil marriages

By Yair Ettinger Haaretz 1-14-11

Three recent rabbinical court rulings have asserted far-reaching and controversial authority in divorces of couples married in a civil ceremony.

The Interior Ministry requires Jewish couples to provide proof of divorce from a rabbinical court to get their divorce registered, regardless of how they married.

But a recent ruling by the Netanya Rabbinical Court stated that in such cases, the rabbinical court also has authority in matters of child support, custody and joint property. Jewish law recognizes civil unions, it said, and therefore may also discuss their dissolution.

The ruling contradicts a 2006 High Court of Justice decision that if the divorcing couple wed in a civil ceremony, all such matters must be handled by civil rather than rabbinical courts, since the latter "deny the property-related manifestations of their married state," as then-Supreme Court President Aharon Barak put it.

Two other rabbinical courts, in Tel Aviv and Haifa, went even further, saying they were authorized to discuss conditions set by the husband for divorce, just as they do in religious divorce cases.

In the Haifa ruling, issued in November, the husband - who is allegedly violent toward his wife - did not want the divorce. The court therefore refused to dissolve their civil marriage.

The Netanya court heard the case of a Jewish couple that married in Cyprus in 1998 and now has two children. Unusually, the husband began divorce proceedings in the rabbinical court rather than a civil one, and also asked it to rule on child support and property division. The wife objected, but the court sided with the husband and heard the case.

According to Prof. Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, head of Bar-Ilan University's Rackman Center for the Advancement of Women's Status, the rabbinical court judges "are bringing tens of thousands of couples who chose not to marry through the Chief Rabbinate under their control."

In contrast, Prof. Eliav Schochetman, a lecturer in Jewish law at Sha'arei Mishpat college, termed the move positive, saying that far from denying women's rights, the rabbinical courts are treating women married in civil unions as married women in every respect. But Halperin-Kaddari called that view "naive."

The 2006 High Court ruling essentially adopted the view of the Rabbinical Court of Appeals that civil marriage had some standing in Jewish law, but could be terminated by rabbinical courts in a fairly simple process. However, the justices continued, rabbinical courts could not discuss other divorce-related issues, such as child custody or property, lest the husband seek to exploit provisions of Jewish law that favor the man in order to deny the woman her rights.

The Netanya Rabbinical Court based its ruling on what is termed "custom of the state," referring to a 16th-century point of Jewish law that dealt with women forced to convert to Christianity who then married other forced converts. This concept held that even though these were essentially civil marriages, the women nevertheless had property rights, just as they would in a Jewish marriage.

Batya Kahana-Dror, who heads Mavoi Satum, a group that assists women who are denied religious divorces, responded to the rulings by calling for an overhaul of Israel's marriage and divorce laws. "Once again, we see that civil marriage is not immune to the rabbinical courts," she said.

E.U. Adopts Divorce Choice of Law Regulation

On December 20, 2010 the European Union Council adopted the Rome III Regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation.

Article 5 allows spouses to agree to designate the law applicable to divorce and legal separation provided that it is one of the following laws:

(a) the law of the State where the spouses are habitually resident at the time the agreement is concluded, or

(b) the law of the State where the spouses were last habitually resident, insofar as one of them still resides there at the time the agreement is concluded, or

(c) the law of the State of nationality of either spouse at the time the agreement is concluded, or

(d) the law of the forum.

Article 8 provides that if the spouses do not agree on a choice the law that will govern their divorce and separation shall be the law of the State:

(a) where the spouses are habitually resident at the time the court is seized; or, failing that,

(b) where the spouses were last habitually resident, provided that the period of residence did not end more than one year before the court was seized, in so far as one of the spouses still resides in that State at the time the court is seized; or, failing that,

(c) of which both spouses are nationals at the time the court is seized; or, failing that,

(d) where the court is seized.

The rules are intended to provide greater certainty, predictability and flexibility, and to prevent the EU’s notorious "rush to court" that the Brussels II Regulation has encouraged.

The Regulation will apply to 14 states, these being Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Austria, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia. Other EU Member States may join at any time. Notable “refusenik” countries are Britain, Ireland and the Scandinavian countries.

Abducted Children Returned from India

We have succeeded twice in recent weeks in securing the return to their homes in the United States of children who were abducted by a parent to India. 

The results were not accomplished through the Indian legal system, which is generally not helpful in this area. Instead we used less formal means of applying appropriate pressure to achieve the desired result.

The outcomes are evident from our clients’ unsolicited testimonials.

In one case: "Simple words cannot describe how Mr. Morley's experience and thorough knowledge in the subject of international law helped me get back my children to the U.S.A.  Now I am a very happy father enjoying every moment with my kids.  Guess what?  Now my wife and I are in the path of complete reconciliation with kids around both of us!" 

In the other case: “Thank you for informing me. …You made it possible for me…You saved my children from suffering very promptly. We can have a wonderful Christmas which I have been asking God every minute.”

It must be stressed that these positive results do not mean that a return of abducted children from India can be accomplished in most cases. There were special circumstances in both cases that made our task very much easier.

As we have frequently argued, the best way to handle international abductions to India is to prevent them from occurring in the first place. When parents argue that a child’s proposed visit to India might lead to the child being wrongfully retained there, such concerns should be given great respect.

French deal could complicate talks with Russia on international child abduction cases

Negotiations with Russia on international child abduction cases could become more complicated. There has been growing pressure on Russia to sign the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, but it is now reported that the European Commission is giving France the right to start negotiations with Russia on a bilateral treaty on international child abduction.

Finland has expressed great concern on this issue, since if individual EU countries negotiate one at a time with Russia there may be less pressure on Russia to sign the Hague Convention.

There have been sharp disagreements between Russia and Finland on the topic of international child abduction. These came to a head in a Finn-Russian case in 2008 and 2009. A Finnish court awarded sole custody of a child to the father. In apparent violation of that order, the Russian mother then took the child to Russia. The father was unable to secure the child’s return from Russia through judicial means and secured the help of the Finland’s Foreign Ministry. A Finnish Foreign Ministry official used a diplomatic vehicle to take the father and son back to Finland. Russia lambasted Finland for a “severe violation of Russian laws.”

Finland is eager for Russia to sign the Convention, as are many other countries, but Russia seems to prefer to handle the issue piecemeal and thereby diffuse the international pressure for it to simply sign the Convention.

Potential International Child Abduction to India: Canadian Court Accepts Morley Expert Opinion

The Superior Court in Ontario, Canada relied in substantial part on the expert evidence of Jeremy D. Morley as to family law in India in ruling that the father of a four-year-old child living in Ontario should not be permitted to take the child on a family visit to India. Mahadevan v. Shankar, issued October 12, 2010. The child’s mother, who has custody of the child, opposed the trip because of her concerns that the child would never return.

The Court extensively referenced Mr. Morley’s opinion on the matter in its written opinion which dismissed the father’s motion to allow this travel.  The relevant portion of the Court’s findings in relation to Mr. Morley’s expertise is as follows:

“Ms. Junger filed a detailed and helpful affidavit of Jeremy D. Morley, a New York State lawyer specializing in international family law.  Mr. Sherman did not challenge Mr. Morley’s expertise.  That affidavit unequivocally outlined the many challenges, frustrations-and indeed roadblocks-which the Applicant would face in attempting to secure V’s return if the Respondent elected not to return the child from India.

It was his ‘very firm opinion’ that notwithstanding any order of a court in Ontario, if the father retained the child, ‘it would be exceedingly difficult and perhaps impossible for the mother to secure V’s return home from India.” Any court proceeding in India to secure the child’s return would be exceedingly slow.  Indian courts do not honor Canadian custody orders.  The mother would have to spend considerable money on legal fees to try and secure the child’s return-or even have access to the child in India.  India does not comply with international norms concerning the return of internationally abducted children ‘and it is a justifiably well-recognized safe haven for international child abductors.’  India has chosen not to accede to the Hague Convention.  ‘India’s failure to sign the treaty constitutes a strong signal that it does not consider the abduction of children from other countries to be a serious matter.’  Indian courts generally do not enforce foreign custody orders.  The law in India is that foreign custody orders are merely items to consider as part of an overall de novo custody review.  International child abduction is not a crime under Indian law and no Indian legislation contains any helpful provisions to deter international child abductions.  There can be no extradition from India for international child abductions.  The court system in India is extremely slow and inefficient.  The delays are such that an abductor has ample time to create ‘facts on the ground’ in terms of getting the child sufficiently settled into life in India to justify an Indian court in ultimately deeming that it is best to keep the child in India. 

At paragraph 23 of his affidavit, Mr. Morley gives a sobering warning:

‘As a consequence of India’s failure to promptly return internationally abducted children, courts outside of India should be extremely wary about allowing parents to take children for temporary visits to India over the objections of other parents since there is a great likelihood that parents who wrongfully retain children in India will get away with their wrongful conduct scot-free in India.’

While the Respondent’s lawyer did not categorically challenge Mr. Morley’s observations and warnings, Mr. Sherman suggested that any concern could be addressed by the Respondent’s offer to sign a legal document in Canada acknowledging that he would consent to the Indian court sending V back to the mother in the event of a dispute.  Given Mr. Morley’s comments about the danger of Indian courts ignoring orders signed by Canadian judges, it is unclear why Indian courts would be more likely to respect a document signed by a parent. 

And considering Mr. Morley’s warnings about India not being a signatory to the Hague Convention - warnings borne out by the cautionary tale in the Venkatesh case - there are overwhelming reasons to be concerned that if the Respondent retained V in India, there is very little the Applicant could do about it.

The Respondent’s motion is dismissed.”

The decision may be found at http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc5608/2010onsc5608.html

Prenuptial Agreements in England

England's Supreme Court, its highest court, has today ruled in Radmacher v. Granatino, that "decisive weight" should be given to the German prenuptial agreement signed by a German heiress and her French husband. The husband had agreed that he would make no claims on Ms. Radmacher's estimated £100m fortune.

The trial court had followed established precedent that prenuptial agreements were no more than evidence of the intent of the parties. That court awarded £5 million to the husband.

The intermediate appellate court, the Court of Appeal, had then cut the award to £1 million, based upon the prenup.

The Supreme Court has now upheld the Court of Appeal, based upon its application of the overall rule of “fairness.”

As one who drafts very many international prenuptial agreements a strong word of warning is essential.

The new ruling maintains the strong role of the English courts in reviewing prenuptial agreements for fairness in a far more interventionist way than courts in most of the rest of the world.

The decision does not make prenuptial agreements necessarily binding. It directs judges to ensure “fairness” on a case-by-case basis.

The facts of the Radmacher case were far more compelling than those that will exist in the more “garden variety” of divorce cases involving parties of less wealth, less sophistication and who are less international.

The family courts in England and Wales will continue to have a very significant discretion in the area of prenuptial agreements.

Prenuptial agreements for any party or partner of a party who is English or who has a current or even a potential English (or U.K.) connection must be carefully drafted and counsel must continue to protect their clients -- and also themselves -- in this area with extreme caution and a full understanding of the nuances of current English law.

Resolution Condemning Japan for International Child Abduction: Full Text

Here is the full text of House Resolution 1326, passed almost unanimously by the U.S. House of Representatives today, September 29, 2010, condemning Japan's "abduction and wrongful retention" of children -- including the children of several of my clients -- and urging Japan to act "immediately" to resolve cases involving U.S. parents.

111th CONGRESS, 2d Session, H. RES. 1326

Calling on the Government of Japan to immediately address the growing problem of abduction to and retention of United States citizen minor children in Japan, to work closely with the Government of the United States to return these children to their custodial parent or to the original jurisdiction for a custody determination in the United States, to provide left-behind parents immediate access to their children, and to adopt without delay the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

RESOLUTION

Calling on the Government of Japan to immediately address the growing problem of abduction to and retention of United States citizen minor children in Japan, to work closely with the Government of the United States to return these children to their custodial parent or to the original jurisdiction for a custody determination in the United States, to provide left-behind parents immediate access to their children, and to adopt without delay the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Whereas Japan is an important partner with the United States and shares interests in the areas of economy, defense, the promotion of global peace and prosperity, and the mutual protection of the human rights of the two nations' respective citizens in the increasingly integrated global society;

Whereas the Government of Japan acceded to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states under Article 16 (1), `Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution', and Article 16 (3), `The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State';

Whereas the Government of Japan acceded in 1979 to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that states `States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children [Article 23]';

Whereas according to Japan's National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, 44,701 marriages between a Japanese national and a foreigner were registered in Japan in 2006, and 17,102 divorces were registered in Japan in 2006 between a Japanese national and foreigner;

Whereas since 1994 the Office of Children's Issues (OCI) at the United States Department of State had opened 194 cases involving 269 United States citizen minor children abducted to or wrongfully retained in Japan, and as of March 25, 2010, OCI had 85 open cases involving 121 United States citizen minor children abducted to or wrongfully retained in Japan;

Whereas since the signing of the Treaty of Peace with Japan (San Francisco Treaty) between the Allied Powers and the Government of Japan in 1951, the Japanese Government has never issued and enforced a legal decision to return a single abducted child to the United States;

Whereas Japan has not acceded to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Hague Convention), resulting in the continued absence of an immediate civil remedy that as a matter of urgency would enable the expedited return of abducted children to their custodial parent in the United States where appropriate, or otherwise immediately allow access to their United States parent;

Whereas the Government of Japan is the only G-7 country that has not acceded to the Hague Convention;

Whereas the Hague Convention would not apply to abductions occurring before the accession of Japan to the Hague Convention, requiring, therefore, that Japan create a separate parallel process to resolve the abductions of all United States citizen minor children who currently remain wrongfully removed to or retained in Japan, including the 121 United States citizen minor children who have been reported to the United States Department of State and who are being held in Japan against the wishes of their parent in the United States and, in many cases, in direct violation of a valid United States court order;

Whereas the Hague Convention provides enumerated defenses designed to provide protection to children alleged to be subjected to physical or psychological abuse in the left-behind country;

Whereas United States laws against domestic violence extend protection and redress to Japanese spouses;

Whereas there are numerous acknowledged cases, such as the Jade and Michael Elias case, of Japanese consulates located within the United States issuing or reissuing travel documents of dual-national minor children in violation of United States court orders restricting travel and in violation of United States Federal criminal parental kidnapping statutes;

Whereas there are numerous cases in which the actions of the Government of Japan evidence a disregard of United States law and jurisdiction, other cases show indifference to the United States and customary international jurisprudence in the area of family law, which overwhelmingly reflects the worldwide preference for the resolution of parenting disputes by negotiated joint custody;

Whereas Japan's existing family law system does not recognize joint custody nor actively enforce parental access agreements for either its own nationals or foreigners, there is little hope for minor children to have contact with the noncustodial parent in violation of internationally recognized and protected rights;

Whereas there exists no due process within the Japanese family court system for the redress of such disputes, and the existing system has no recognized process to enforce a custody or parental access order from outside of Japan or within it, without the voluntary cooperation of the abducting parent or guardian;

Whereas the Government of Japan has repeatedly claimed to foreign governments that parental child abduction is not considered a crime in Japan despite the fact that Article 3 of the Japanese Penal Code does indeed make it a crime for a Japanese citizen to abduct a child and move the child across national borders, even if the child is moved to Japan;

Whereas the Government of Japan has refused to prosecute an abducting parent or relative criminally when that parent or relative abducts the child into Japan;

Whereas according to the United States Department of State's April 2008 Report on Compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, abducted children are at risk of serious emotional and psychological problems and have been found to experience anxiety, eating problems, nightmares, mood swings, sleep disturbances, aggressive behavior, resentment, guilt, and fearfulness, and as adults may struggle with identity issues, their own personal relationships, and parenting;

Whereas left-behind parents may encounter substantial psychological, emotional, and financial problems, and many may not have the financial resources to pursue civil or criminal remedies for the return of their children in foreign courts or political systems;

Whereas Erika Toland was abducted in 2003 from Negishi United States Navy Family housing in Yokohama to Tokyo, Japan, by her now deceased mother and is being held by her Japanese maternal grandmother, while being denied access to her father since 2004;

Whereas Melissa Braden was covertly abducted from her home in 2006 by her mother to Japan in violation of previous Los Angeles Superior Court orders giving both parents access to the child and prohibiting international travel (travel to Japan) with the child by either parent and has since been denied any contact with her father;

Whereas Kai Hachiya was abducted in 2006 to Japan by his father, who had been found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have physically and mentally abused Kai's mother who had been awarded sole custody in the State of Hawaii, and as a result, Kai has had limited contact with his mother;

Whereas Isaac and Rebecca Savoie were abducted in 2009 to Japan by their mother in violation of a Tennessee State court order of joint custody and Tennessee statutes, and have been denied any access or communication with their father, despite their father having been awarded sole custody of them by a United States court;

Whereas Karina Garcia was abducted to Japan in 2008 by her mother, who was ordered by the United States courts to return Karina to the care of her sole custodian father in the United States, but the order to return of the child has not been granted even though the sole custody order had been recognized by the Osaka High Court;

Whereas United States citizen minor children who have been abducted to Japan are being deprived of their United States heritage;

Whereas, on October 16, 2009, the Ambassadors to Japan of Australia, Canada, France, Italy, New Zealand, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States, all parties to the Hague Convention, called upon Japan to accede to the Hague Convention and meanwhile to identify and implement measures to enable parents who are separated from their children to establish contact with them and to visit them;

Whereas, on January 30, 2010, the Ambassadors to Japan of Australia, France, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, the Charges d'Affaires ad interim of Canada and Spain, and the Deputy Head of Mission of Italy, called on Japan's Minister of Foreign Affairs, submitted their concerns over the increase in international parental abduction cases involving Japan and affecting their nationals, and again urged Japan to sign the Hague Convention;

Whereas the Governments of the United States and the French Republic have recently established bilateral commissions with Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs to share information on and seek resolution of outstanding Japanese parental child abduction cases;

Whereas the bilateral commission is limited by the fact that it does not currently include Japan's Ministry of Justice, which has jurisdiction over family law;

Whereas Japan's Justice Minister Keiko Chiba said upon her appointment that she is determined to show that Japan `is very proactive' in adopting international protocols and conventions that are the `international standard'; and

Whereas it is critical for the Governments of the United States and Japan to work together to prevent future incidents of international parental child abduction to Japan, which damages children, families, and Japan's national image with the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That--

(1) the House of Representatives--

(A) condemns the abduction and retention of all minor children being held in Japan away from their United States parents in violation of their human rights and United States and international law;

(B) calls on the Government of Japan to immediately facilitate the resolution of all abduction cases, to recognize United States court orders governing persons subject to jurisdiction in a United States court, and to make immediately possible access and communication for all children with their left-behind parents;

(C) calls on the Government of Japan to include Japan's Ministry of Justice in work with the Government of the United States to facilitate the identification and location of all United States minor citizen children alleged to have been wrongfully removed to or retained in Japan and for the immediate establishment of a protocol for the resolution of existing cases of abduction, interference with parental access to children, and violations of United States court orders;

(D) calls on the Government of Japan to establish immediately a protocol and timetable to amend its Civil Code to allow for enforceable rights of parental access and communication between minor children and their divorced or separated parents including parents who are not Japanese citizens;

(E) calls on the Government of Japan to review and amend its consular procedures to ensure that travel documents for minor children are not issued in violation of United States court orders;

(F) calls on Japan to accede to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction without delay and to promptly establish judicial and enforcement procedures to facilitate credibly the immediate return of children to their habitual residence and to establish protocols for the organization of rights of international parental access; and

(G) calls on the President of the United States and the Secretary of State to seek immediately to identify credibly all United States citizen minor children who have been wrongfully removed to and who are retained currently in Japan and to raise the issue of abduction and wrongful retention of those United States citizen minor children in Japan with Japanese officials and domestic and international press; and

(2) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should--

(A) recognize the issue of child abduction to and retention of United States citizen minor children in Japan as a central foreign policy issue of paramount importance to the United States within the context of its bilateral relationship with Japan;

(B) work with the Government of Japan to enact consular procedures and legal agreements to prevent parental abduction to and retention of United States citizen minor children in Japan;

(C) encourage the Government of Japan to adopt the policy of not issuing duplicate passports when a United States judge has restricted a child's travel or ordered the surrender of passports and to otherwise require notarized signatures from both parents before issuing a passport to a child;

(D) review its advisory services made available to United States citizens from the Department of State, the Department of Justice, and other government agencies to ensure that effective and timely assistance is given to United States citizens in preventing the incidence of wrongful retention or removal of minor children and acting to obtain the expeditious return of their children from Japan;

(E) review its advisory services made available to members of the United States Armed Forces, particularly those stationed in Japan by the Department of Defense and the United States Armed Forces, to ensure that effective and timely assistance is given to them, including providing legal assistance in preventing the incidence of wrongful retention or removal of minor children and acting to obtain the expeditious return of their dependent children from Japan at the conclusion of their tour of duty in Japan;

(F) call upon the Secretary of Defense to include the issues of child abduction and the protection of members of the United States Armed Forces and their families stationed abroad in any current or future status of forces agreement;

(G) call upon the Secretary of State to enact immediately a Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Japan to establish a bilateral protocol with procedures to address immediately any parental child abduction or access issue reported to the United States Department of State; and

(H) urge the Department of State to include international child abduction and Japan's actions regarding abductions as a human rights violation under its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.