Identifier | Created | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|
04THEHAGUE1558 | 2004-06-23 09:07:00 | UNCLASSIFIED | Embassy The Hague |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available. |
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 THE HAGUE 001558 |
1. SUMMARY: The second meeting of the Special Commission of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCOPIL) on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance took place June 7-June 18, 2004. Building on the work of the first meeting of the Special Commission in May 2003 and of the drafting committee formed at that time, the second session of the Special Commission made considerable progress. In particular, the European Commission showed significantly more flexibility this year than last on the key issues of jurisdiction and scope. The report of the last year,s activities of the informal U.S.-led Administrative Cooperation Working Group (ACWG) was well-received, and the Special Commission gave the ACWG a mandate to continue its work as a formal group. U.S. Office of Child Support Commissioner Sherri Z. Heller,s presence at part of the meeting was welcomed by the members of the Special Commission as a tangible sign of U.S. support for international child support. Commissioner Heller stressed that the U.S. was interested in a practical convention that will produce results. The Permanent Bureau anticipates that this project will be concluded in 2006. U.S, delegation is cautiously optimistic that the final result will be an instrument that meets U.S. legal and policy concerns. End summary. 2. U.S. PARTICIPANTS: Dr. Sherri Heller, Commissioner, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration of Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services was the senior U.S. official on the U.S. delegation. The delegation included Mary Helen Carlson, (L/PIL), Monica Gaw (CA/OCS/PRI), Elizabeth Matheson (HHS/ACF/OCSE), Robert Keith (Children, Families and Aging Division, HHS), Mary Dahlberg, Deputy Attorney General, California; Margaret Haynes, Director, State and Local Government, Tier Technologies, Inc; Profession John J. Sampson, University of Texas School of Law, and Mariana Silveira, National Law Center for Inter-American Free Trade. In addition NGOs from the United States participating in the Special Commission included the National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA) represented by Margot Bean, Deputy Commissioner and Director, CSE, New York Division of Child Support Enforcement; Ms. Sandra Kay Farley, Director, Government Relations Office, National Center for State Courts, Alisha Griffin, Assistant Director, Child Support, New Jersey Department of Health and Human Services, Elana L. Hatch, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, Family Support Division, Las Vegas, Nevada and Marilyn Ray Smith, IV-D Director, Child Support Enforcement, Boston, Massachusetts; and from the International Bar Association, Gloria De Hart and Gary Caswell. 3. PARTICIPATION OF DR. SHERRI Z. HELLER, COMMISSIONER OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, IN THE SPECIAL COMMISSION Dr. Sherri Heller, Commissioner, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration of Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, actively participated in the first two days of the Special Commission, during which the need for and extent of administrative cooperation among countries was debated. Commissioner Heller stressed the two principles guiding the U.S. approach to a multilateral child support convention: parental responsibility and better tangible results for children. She stated that those results should ensure financial security for children and families, independent of government largesse. She stressed the commitment of government resources necessary to shift financial responsibility from states to families and to promote healthy and stable families. She praised the work of the ACWG coordinated and financially supported by the United States, as reflecting thoughtful deliberation and consideration of practical and flexible approaches essential to the success of a new convention. The ACWG,s work, and the Special Commission,s efforts to date, show encouraging signs for the convention to produce concrete results in the form of more reliable support for children. During Commissioner Heller,s participation, she expressed the need to provide necessary assistance to both creditors and debtors, to include recoupment of state welfare expenditures while maximizing support flowing directly to families and to recognize that within the United States, child support is an exception to the general rule that family law is generally a matter of individual state, rather than federal, law. The Hague Conference Permanent Bureau hosted a luncheon in Dr. Heller,s honor, attended by His Excellency Fausto Pocar, the Chairman of the Special Commission. 4. NCSEA RECEPTION For the second year, the National Child Support Enforcement Association sponsored a reception attended by most delegates. This year it was held in the garden at the residence of the Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. Embassy, Daniel R. Russel. 5. PARTICIPANTS Approximately 50 countries participated, which was about 10 more than last year. The increased participation of Latin American countries was welcome. (The U.S. deserves some credit for this, as the new convention was a focus of the U.S.-sponsored Meeting of the Americas on International Child Support held in August 2003. The U.S. was also one of the countries that funded Spanish interpretation and translation.) In addition, broader geographic participation included the Asian and Pacific countries of China, Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, African nations of South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe and from the Near East and South Asia: Egypt, Israel and Pakistan. 6.. REPORTS ON ACTIVITIES OF THE MAY 2003 SPECIAL COMMISSION WORKING GROUPS: In the intervening twelve months since the meeting of the First Special Commission, the informal working groups and the Permanent Bureau of the HCOPIL were hard at work moving the Special Commission,s agenda forward. The drafting committee prepared a preliminary draft agreement for consideration. The U.S.-led informal Administrative Cooperation Working Group (and its subcommittees: Country Profile Committee, Forms Committee, and Timelines Committee) and the formal Applicable Law working group reported on their efforts and introduced preliminary documents for consideration. (The informal jurisdiction working group did not present a substantive report.) The Applicable Law group, headed by Switzerland, made a proposal to include optional rules on applicable law. No decision was made on this proposal, but it was progress that no one is now arguing for mandatory applicable law rules, which would be unacceptable to the U.S. The Special Commission asked the ACWG to continue as a formal group with a mandate to continue consideration of forms of administrative cooperation in the context of this negotiation. The U.S. suggested that additional countries join the U.S. in coordinating the activities of the ACWG, and it was agreed that the coordinating committee will consist of Australia, Costa Rica, Hungary and the U.S. 7. ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION Antoine Buchet has replaced Marie-Odile Baur as the Commission,s spokesperson at the Special Commission. Both during the Special Commission and during bilateral meetings with the U.S., Mr. Buchet was friendly, eager to discuss possible compromises, and relatively flexible. In particular, the Commission is no longer arguing for mandatory rules of jurisdiction that would prevent the U.S. from joining the convention. 8. ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO THE U.S. SCOPE OF THE CONVENTION: While all experts agreed that the first focus of the convention should be child support enforcement, a majority of experts also favored extension of administrative and judicial remedies to spousal support, and some favored extending it to other forms of family support. It was clear that not all countries were prepared to dedicate resources to forms of family support other than child support. Experts determined that some form of reservation allowing states not to apply the convention to support obligations other than those owed to children (and possibly spouses) will be necessary. FUNCTIONS OF CENTRAL AUTHORITIES/TYPES OF REQUESTS COVERED: The U.S. is one of a number of countries for whom strong provisions on administrative cooperation are the most important elements of this convention. There was much debate over the nature and extent of the Central Authority,s responsibilities. The U.S. strongly urged that the convention should apply to a broad range of requests for services, including requests for establishment of a new order, establishment of paternity, recognition and enforcement of orders, modification of orders and limited assistance requests (such as a request to locate a debtor or assets). While some countries do not want to include paternity establishment or requests for limited services as obligations of the Central Authority, for the most part there was a consensus that the convention should cover all of the types of requests just listed. COSTS: It was readily agreed that Central Authorities should not charge for administrative services provided to other Central Authorities. However, there was no agreement on whether all services, including legal services if necessary, must be provided to the applicant free of charge. This is a fundamental principle for the U.S., as the legal right to collect child support in an international case is an empty right if the applicant has to retain a lawyer in a foreign country. Many countries, including both developed and developing nations, do provide free legal services in child support cases. But some (including France and Spain) apply a means test that is so low that virtually no U.S. applicant, including those below the U.S. poverty line, qualifies for free services. The U.S. made it clear that a country must provide our applicants effective access to the procedures available under the Convention, including by providing free legal services if necessary. This may be the most difficult issue to resolve. BASES FOR RECOGNITION: We had feared that this issue would be contentious, with some states arguing that "habitual residence of the child" must be a mandatory ground of jurisdiction despite the fact that this is inconsistent with U.S. due process requirements and would prevent the U.S. from becoming a party to the convention. However, a compromise was achieved relatively quickly, most likely because the members of the European Union agreed that a major reason to negotiate a new child support convention was to produce a convention the U.S. would join. The compromise is that the convention will include a list of bases on which one state will recognize and enforce a decision of another state. The list will include "habitual residence of the child" as well as the U.S. fact-based ground; states will be able to make a reservation with respect to the "habitual residence of the child." TRANSMISSION, RECEIPT AND PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS AND CASES: There was general consensus that all applications should be made to the central authority in the requesting state for services of the central authority in the requested state. In other words, a foreign applicant cannot apply directly to the Central Authority of another state, but instead must work through her own Central Authority. This should provide some level of quality control over the applications. MODIFICATION: There was general consensus that modification of a support order should be made by the original forum in the original state of issuance. If the creditor and debtor have all left the original jurisdiction, and information about change of circumstances is needed, the new jurisdiction should confer with the original jurisdiction. ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER: A review of pilot projects and developing technologies for electronic funds transfer was conducted. This included New Zealand/Australia practices and U.S./Canada exchanges. Recognizing that the new Convention will be a modern, future directed instrument, all countries, with widely varying resources embraced these developments with a view toward getting funds to children as quickly and inexpensively as possible. The Permanent Bureau presented a paper on developments in electronic funds transfer. 9. CONCLUSION The Drafting Committee (which includes two members of the U.S. delegation) will meet in October to continue work on the draft convention. The next plenary session of the Special Commission will take place in May or June 2005. There will need to be one (or possibly two) more Special Commissions before a final Diplomatic Conference is held. The Permanent Bureau believes that concluding the draft instrument by the end of 2006 is a realistic goal. SOBEL |