CHILD ABDUCTION: NEW CENTRAL AUTHORITY DIRECTOR DISCUSSES

UNCLAS PRAGUE 000202 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR EUR/NCE AND CA/OCS/CI E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: CASC CMGT PREL EZ SUBJECT: CHILD ABDUCTION: NEW CENTRAL AUTHORITY DIRECTOR DISCUSSES SANTANA, CCA MISSION ¶1. CG met March 19, 2008, with the new head of the Czech Office for International Legal Protection of Children (the Czech Central Authority or CCA),Lenka Pavlova. Pavlova was previously a lawyer in private general practice with a focus on family law. She said she applied for her present position at the urging of then Acting Director, longtime Embassy and Office of Children's Issues contact, Marketa Novakova. Pavlova speaks English. ¶2. Pavlova said she was instituting some changes to the CCA. There would, for example, be a new focus on moving cases along quickly. She also wants to educate citizens, social workers and others about child abduction issues with the goal of trying to prevent cases from arising. Finally, she wants to strongly emphasize mediation as a way to resolve cases. ¶3. As an example of the new approach Pavlova cited the Santana case. She said she met personally with Mr. Santana and with Ms. Horvathova (the taking parent in the case) to offer her services as a mediator to find a way for Mr. Santana to have regular access to his son. Unfortunately, she said, both parents rejected the idea of mediation, at least for the time being. She did arrange for Mr. Santana to have access to his son (Pablito) while he was here in February, and said they saw each other almost every day. She also arranged for him to see the pre-school where Pablito goes, and to meet with the pre-school director. She said Pablito was unfortunately absent from school that day due to illness, according to the mother (who she said lives in Prague 13). She said Mr. Santana did not want to press for mediation because he was afraid of upsetting the mother and thus losing the access he was able to have. She said Ms. Horvathova did not want to mediate access to Pablito in the U.S. because she was still afraid she might be arrested and prosecuted if she went there. Indeed, Pavlova said that Diane Kenney from the California prosecutor's office was unable to provide unequivocal assurance that Horvathova would not be arrested. ¶4. With regard to the Santana court case, she confirmed that there is as yet no written opinion of the decision the court made on February 25. She also confirmed the decision was based on Article XIII (best interests of the child) and that the CCA, in an advisory capacity to the court, had supported this interpretation. She said that in general she supports speedy return of children, but viewed this as an exceptional case for several reasons: the age of the child, the passage of time, the fact that the child has bonded with his mother, and the fact that the child does not speak English. She emphasized that she wanted to continue to work to mediate regular visitation for Mr. Santana. ¶5. In more general discussion of the Hague Convention, Pavlova referred several times to the importance of the best interests of the child, and noted that her office title had the words "protection of children" in it. She also referred to the importance of the mother- child bond during the child's first three years of life, and said it was important to consider this as well. When asked a hypothetical question - female taking parent, two-year-old boy, court decision within three months of abduction, would she support return or not - she sidestepped an explicit answer, but referred to the importance of maintaining the close mother-child bond. CG pointed out that the Hague Convention was designed to return children quickly to their habitual place of residence, in part because it was courts in the habitual place of residence who were best situated to evaluate the best interests of the child. Pavlova agreed with this, but then cited the Santana case where, she said, so much time had passed that the court best situated to evaluate best interests was in the Czech Republic. She acknowledged that the delay was in fact the fault of the Czechs - she mentioned this several times - and said she hoped to prevent such delays from happening in future cases. She noted that a legislative package proposed by the Ministry of Justice (setting up a special court of experts, among other things) was still under active consideration, and both she and Novakova expected it to succeed at some point. ¶6. Comment: Some aspects of Pavlova's statements could portend difficulties for future Czech Hague cases. Her mother-centric views and focus on "best interests" may indicate a serious misreading of the language and intent of the Convention. At the same time her acknowledgment of Czech failures, her vow to speed things up, and her explicitly expressed desire to work closely with the U.S. Embassy and the Office of Children's Issues signal some openness to dialogue. She noted that the visit of CG was the first official visit of any foreign diplomat to her office in Brno, and she seemed eager to meet and establish contact with Office of Children's Issues representatives. Post believes an effort to make these contacts early on could prove fruitful in the long run. Post notes that Acting A/S Jacobs will be in Prague May 6 - a meeting with Pavlova might be useful. Pavlova indicated a willingness to come to Prague, where she lives, for such a meeting. End Comment.