American children abducted to Germany are not being returned as sent down by the articles of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, reports Mike Dewine, Republican Senator for Ohio.  Dewine explains,

"Germany has signed the Hague Convention, which means that they agree that if a child is kidnapped to Germany, to return that child to the country wherever that child came from," said Sen. Mike Dewine, R-Ohio. "Yet, in only about a fifth of the cases do they do this." (CNN, 2000).
 
After a meeting between American President Clinton and  German Chancellor Schroder, German authorities have indicated that they were addressing U.S. concerns that children that had been international child abducted and not returned by setting up a special task force with the United States to Review individual cases.

At a meeting in Berlin on June 1, 2000, Chancellor Gerhard Schroder and President Bill Clinton addressed the issue of cross-border custody disputes and accusations that German courts unfairly favor German parent in awarding custody. Schroder proposed that the Federal Ministry of justice and the U.S. Department of justice establish a working group to examine individual cases and to consider whether institutional changes are needed to improve resolution of custody
disputes within the framework of the Hague Convention. (German Embassy, 2000).

The high rate of non-return of American children by German authorities may be the result of the current social welfare practices of the German State, with Hague non-compliance being only one of the symptoms of  German Social welfare policies and practices.  In the majority of cases involving children that have been abducted to Germany, social services and psychologists were called in to provide the Hague courts and family courts with recommendations regarding return and access in these abduction cases.  The courts, deferring to the recommendations and finding of representatives from the German social Services and child psychologists, have put into place a practice of recognizing those recommendations in deference to the Hague guidelines.  It is therefore suggested that the source of non-returns of American child by German authorities lies not with the Hague courts, but rather with German social welfare practices. 

While children have been returned to the United States under the Hague treaty, the question remains as to way so few returns are ordered or honored as well as access issues.  In order to determine the practice of the German social welfare system in cases of international child abduction, a look at the evolution of that system may provide answers. This year, the Social Service Agency of the Evangelical Church in Germany takes over the rotating role of overall
control / coordination of the six (German Welfare Organizations) - Approximately 1 million full-time workers. (EDK, 2000).

History:
Redefining the Family role Post WW1 found Germany in a state of economic crisis.  With the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party, laws were put into place which redefined the rights, duties and status of the individual in German society.  These affected the roles of women, men and children at the most intimate level of social obligation in regards to their role in the family unit. Those roles were often obeyed as a result of economic relief to those who were compliant to the law, while others were forced to obedience. The restructuring of German society and the explicit defining of the roles of individuals and their obligations to Germany had a profound impact on all, including the children.  An understanding of the specific laws pertaining to children then and now may lead to a better understanding of why children are not returned, or why children are not returned as desired by the United States.

In redefining the role of individuals, Germany past a series of laws known as the Nuremberg laws. These laws put into place mechanisms to further the adherence to the redefined roles of individuals non-Aryan individuals. (Gilbert,1979).

Some of the issues addressed were:
1.     Who could marry
2.     Who could have children
3.     The number of persons considered to be a family
4.     Grounds for divorce
5.     Women in the work place
6.     Men‘s roles
7.     Child Support
8.     Education

These laws, known as the race laws were put into place to also divide and define Aryan from non-Aryan people. These laws had a profound effect on individual family members from both groups.  The central theme to all social restructuring laws was to create a master race of German people and at the same time, exterminate those that did not meet the definition of Aryan.  While the history of  the Holocaust is well documented, the plight of children and the affects these laws had on children have not.  

In order to carry out this agenda, Aryan mothers were encouraged to have children to increase the Aryan population, in part, by:
 
1.     Lowering of marriage age
2.     Having sexual intercourse with only Aryan men
3.     Encouragement of child birth outside of marriage
4.     Creation of the Lebensborn Program
5.     Outlawed working mothers
6.     Rewarded mothers with large families
7.     Outlawed abortion
8.     Outlawed marriage for sterile women
9.     School curiculum for girls was geared towards physical education and homemaking skills
 


Laws and programs effecting non-Aryan women and children included:
 
1.     Sterilization
2.     Illegal to have sexual intercourse with an Aryan male
3.    Twin children were subjected to experiments in an effort to determine how twins were conceived for the further population of the Aryan race.
4.     Non-Aryan children not permitted to attend school, or education was minimal
5.     Non-Aryan children not permitted to play in parks, go to children1s activities
7.     Non-Aryan children were placed into forced labor
8.     Non-Aryan children were routinely separated from their families
9.     Non-Aryan children were murdered.
 
In both categories, fathers by far and large were absent from the children‘s lives.  Many children, both Aryan and non-Aryan were sent to live with family, friends, convents and orphanages for protection during the war years. Others were orphans of soldiers or separated in concentration camps. Still others comprise  a category of children that were forcibly removed from their families and kidnapped by order of laws and policies of the German State.

Lebensborn: State Ordered International Child Abduction

Nazi encouragement to produce Aryan children lead to the Lebensborn program.  This program not only encouraged Aryan women to have children, but also rewarded those efforts through economic incentive.  Lebensborn homes were set up in Germany and occupied countries for the benefit of Aryan mothers to live during their pregnancy and delivery. The demand for children brought with it a change in moral code regarding unwed mothers.  Unwed mothers were elevated to the status of the married woman, including the right to use Mrs. in front of their name. These children were often adopted out or housed in orphanages.  Nazi SS men were ordered to father children with Aryan women. It has been suggested by  John Hooper,  that economic incentives offered to those women  prompted some into compliance at a time when the economy was in a disastrous state. Though portrayed as a way of getting young Nazi to, mate for the fatherland, the  Lebensborn project had some characteristics of a welfare scheme for single mothers.  (Hooper, 1999).

While many Aryan children were being conceived and born under the Lebensborn program, authorities were not satisfied with the rate of population increase of Aryan children and expanded the Lebensborn program.  Himmler(1943) ordered the international kidnapping of children from those countries they had conquered. In a speech to the SS Group leaders in Poznan, Himmler ordered those children meeting racial qualifications be abducted from families in conquered countries, particularly Poland.  These children were placed with German families in Germany.  Such good blood of our own kind as there may be among the nations we shall acquire for ourselves, if necessary by taking away the children and bringing them up among us. (Himmler, Oct ,1943)

The children abducted under the policy and programs of the Third Reich, specifically the SS,  fell under the Lebensborn program. The intent was to Germanize these abducted children.  German authorities believed that younger children would acclimate easier than did older children.  As such, age limits were discussed in regards to those children that should be kidnapped. Dear comrade Brandt, Concerning the matter "children of executed Czechs" I wish to reply to your letter as directed to SS-Lieutenant General Frank, date 6 February of this year, diary index No. 26/2/44 g Bra/H, that the conversation between SS-Lieutenant General Frank and SS Colonel Sollmann took place on 2 July of last year in Prague. Colonel Sollmann stated during this conversation that racially valuable children up to six years would be considered eligible by the "Lebensborn"... It was intended, to have children up to six years and suitable for Germanization brought into German families through the "Lebensborn"... It is intended to have the racially acceptable elements of the collectively housed children transferred through the "Lebensborn" to German families or to a children's home whereas the children over 6 years are to be sent to a concentration camp. (the Minister of State for the Protectorate of Bohemia
and Moravia, 1944).

Abducted children taken into the Lebensborn program were systematically „Germanized“ by programming [brainwashing] the child into what the authorities expected him or her to be. Names were changed and they were encouraged  not to speak any language other than German.  The children were not allowed to contact their families and were often told that their families no longer existed or that their families did not want them. Thousands of children were transferred to the "Lebensborn" centers in order to be "Germanized". In these centers, everything was done to force the children to reject and forget their birth parents. As an example, the SS nurses tried to persuade the children that they were deliberately abandoned by their parents. The children who refused the Nazi education were often beaten. (JSOURCE, 2000).

While the Actual numbers of children internationally abducted through the Lebensborn program are unknown, estimates reach as high as a quarter of a million.  Ironically, even after Europe was liberated, many German families refused to return the kidnapped children to their families, citing they were too Germanized to return. In 1946, it was estimated that more than 250,000 were kidnapped and sent by force to Germany. Only 25,000 were retrieved after the war and sent back to their family. It is known that several German families refused to give back the children they had received from the Lebensborn centers. In some cases, the children themselves refused to come back in their original family: they were victims of the Nazi propaganda and believed that they were pure Germans. It is also known that thousands of children not "good enough" to be Germanized were simply exterminated. (Châtel & Ferree, 1997-2000). Children abducted under the Lebensborn program  were targeted for“Germanization“  and systematically programmed [brainwashed] using a variety of techniques.

The effects of the Lebensborn program -defined in the Nuremberg Trials as crimes against humanity- are evident more than half a century later as the children that were products of this program struggle for identity.  Several groups exist in Europe for Lebensborn children to cope with the decades of uncertainty and their search for identity. The personal histories of the children of Lebensborn who ended up in East Germany were hidden for decades by the authorities of that postwar Communist state. .. says Wilhelm Lenz, head of the department for documents from the Third Reich. "Until recently, many didn't know or suspect they were Lebensborn children."  "Before the change (in1989), no one ever talked about the past," says Harzendorf, who still lives barely half a mile from the orphanage. "All my foster mother ever told me was that I didn't have any parents anymore and I was coming to live with her. She was a good person and would never have imagined such things (as Lebensborn) ever existed."  (Williams, 2000).

After the war, many of the Lebensborn children grew up scorned as Nazi progeny and tormented by dark uncertainties about their origins." (Hammer, 2000).

Having rejected our origins, we have ended up as refugees in our own country. The result is that most of us don't know other NS children but our own brothers and sisters. .. we NS children have fought a battle lasting forty-five years more than our parents' war. That one lasted only five years. We have been in continuous struggle with society, with our parents and with ourselves." (Klüwer , 2000).

Abductions from The United States of America
 
Today, children are still being abducted to Germany from other countries. While these abductions are no longer ordered by the German government,  German practice in regards to the return of these children as well as germanizing them, appear to find more similarity in the Lebensborn Program than in the Hague Treaty, an International treaty providing language that provides for the return of children that have been illegally abducted to Germany.  The Hague Treaty is not the only treaty which Germany has ratified in regards to the treatment of children.

As a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, obligations towards recognition of a child1s rights as well as obligations towards to signatory state to implement policies and resources that would ensure those rights, particularly in regards to parental abduction, have been ignored. While the Child1s Rights Convention is not provide for any mechanism by which individual grievances can be heard, it does recognize that children are
deserving of special consideration and protection.  In regards to parental abduction, the Rights of the Child Convention states that signatories, at the highest level, will ensure these rights:

1.    The right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

2.    The right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations asrecognized by law without unlawful interference.
 
3.    Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to speedily reestablishing his or her identity.
 
4. Ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will.

 
5. Respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations anddirect contact with both parents on a regular basis
 
6.     In accordance with the obligation of States Parties under article 9, paragraph 1, applications by a child or his rher parents to enter or leave a State Party for the purpose of family reunification shall be dealt with by States Parties in a positive, humane and expeditious manner. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall entail no adverse consequences for the applicants and for the members of their family.
 
7. A child whose parents reside in different States shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis, save in exceptional circumstances personal relations and direct contacts with both parents.
 
8. Respect the right of the child and his or her parents to leave any country, including their own, and to reenter their own country.

9. State Parties shall take measures to combat the illicit traffic and non-return of children abroad.
 
10.  State Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child
 
11. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honor and reputation.

12.  State Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have commonresponsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child
 
13. Measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.
 
14.  When considering solutions, due regard shall be paid to the desirability of continuity in a child's upbringing and to the child's ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background

15.  State Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of: any form of neglect, exploitation, or abuse; torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or armed conflicts. Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child.

The underlying theme to all the right dues to a child is „in the child‘s best interest“.  It is in the context that the German social Welfare system appears to define a child1s best interest as that of being German, even to the extent of Germanizing the child as per the Lebensborn policy.  It is under the theory of the best interest of the child that German psychologist, family courts and social welfare services, apply policies and practice in direct violation of both The Hague Convention and the Rights of the Child Treaty.  German social welfare does not recognize child
abduction as child abuse, and therefore, the perpetrators are often rewarded and protected by the German system, further enabling the abuse of the child.  German social welfare system also does not recognize reunification, deferring rather to denial of access in the event a child has been  brainwashed or Germanized as seen in many of the Lebensborn cases."Their view of the child's welfare is such -- and it's so distorted -- that there's no way they can conceive of a child ever being better off in any country outside of Germany," [Law professor] Feinerman said. (CNN,2000).

The effects of the Nuremberg laws as the Lebensborn policies put into place during the Nazi era in regards to the roles and responsibility of family members are still being felt.  It may be these, the social and welfare policies and practices of Germany, that are retarding the return of internationally abducted children, rather than the Hague Treaty, citing failure of the Hague as one of the casualties of social welfare policies and practices.  Allegations against Germany in its non-return policy of abducted children come not only from the United States,[but also France].
I informed him [German Judge] that the "new" German law stated that I had unquestionable rights to visitation. The judge told me that he "did not believe in the new law". (Gebhard,2000).

The current practice of those that have abducted children to Germany as well as the systems that support and enable these abductions, i.e. German social welfare services and German child psychologists  are  Germanized using a variety of techniques.

They include:
 
1.     Forced separation from family
2.     Denial of access to family
3.     Forced separation from friends
4.     Forced separation from community
5.     Restrictions on speaking any language but German
6.     Children being often told their parents were dead, did not want them or they were unfit
7.     Children being told that the German way was superior than their own culture
8.     Children being denied knowledge of their past
9.     German abductors being eligible for economic incentives from German government.

Concern over abduction complaints regarding Germany, the governments of both France and the United States have resulted in meetings with German authorities in an attempt to remedy the problem.  There was no question that the complaints by brokenhearted parents were true.  Children were being abducted to Germany and German authorities were not returning them to their parents as per the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.  Even after the leaders of both the United States and Germany meeting and discussing the problem, little has been accomplished except promised visitation in a few selected  cases. The United States Congress responded to allegations of German non-compliance by urging compliance to the Hague. Whereas some contracting states, for example Germany, routinely invoke Article 13 as a justification for non-return, rather than resorting to it in a small number of wholly exceptional cases S[H. Con. Res. 293].
 
The House passed Congressional Resolution naming Germany as one of the countries in violation of the Hague treaty in regards to their refusal to return American children, or even ensure access between the children and the American parent. Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress urges--

(1) all contracting parties to the Hague Convention, particularly European civil law countries that consistently violate the Hague Convention such as Austria, Germany and Sweden, to comply fully with both the letter and spirit of their international legal obligations under the Convention;

(2) all contracting parties to the Hague Convention to ensure their compliance with the Hague Convention by enacting effective implementing legislation and educating their judicial and law enforcement authorities;

(3) all contracting parties to the Hague Convention to honor their commitments and return abducted or wrongfully retained children to their place of habitual residence without reaching the merits of any underlying custody dispute and ensure parental access rights by removing obstacles to the exercise of such rights;

(4) the Secretary of State to disseminate to all Federal and State courts the Department of State's annual report to Congress on Hague Convention compliance and related matters; and

5) each contracting party to the Hague Convention to further educate its central authority and local law enforcement authorities regarding the Hague Convention, the severity of the problem of international child abduction, and the need for immediate action when a parent of an abducted child seeks their assistance.

Germanization is another term for programming [brainwashing] a child to acclimate to the German culture, giving preference to those things that are German, whilst divorcing themselves from those things not considered German, thus retarding any sense of ethnicity outside that which is German. In Dr. Nancy Faulkner1s presentation to the United Nations, Human Rights Commission, 1999, Parental Child Abduction is Child Abuse,  she writes, Children who have been psychologically violated and maltreated through the act of abduction are more likely to exhibit a variety of psychological and social handicaps.  Faulkner‘s seventeen page report outlines the emotional and psychological effects that abduction can have on children, including alienation. 

Brainwashing and programming are terms used more and more frequently by experts of parental child abduction. These terms may initially offend or alienate the reader who is not familiar with Parental Alienation and abduction dynamics.  Brainwashing and programming or changing a child‘s belief systems,--may be intentional, or, it may be the unintentional process of a parent imposing their belief systems on the child through an extended period of inadvertent repetition. (Faulkner,1999).

In the process of Germanizing American abducted children, different forms of alienation, and programming [brainwashing] are being used to program any sense of being American out of them.Naomi (now 12) exhibits the mentality of a hostage. She is afraid to talk to me freely on the phone in her father's presence. In CA she was an excellent student, but in Germany she barely passed to the next grade level. Her teacher for the previous two years commented on her report card, "she cannot formulate her own independent ideas", contradicting the German Youth Authority and judges who said, she was mature and capable of forming her own opinions. She told us, she has difficulties concentrating in school. (Gerbatsch-Bornemisza, 2000).

Records indicate that American children have had their names changed by the abductor.  The vast majority of abducted children are forbidden to contact their parents in the United States.  it will be 3 years since I have seen my children or spoken with them. The German authorities refuse to tell me where they are. (Marquette, 2000).  Abducted American children are taught to speak German, forgetting English.  Many abducted children under the Lebensborn program were not returned after the war because they had become too Germanized, so is the reasoning for German authorities in not returning children abducted today. Daniel and Michelle now speak only German and cannot understand English. The German courts have used this language barrier as another justification for keeping them in Germany.   (Jeffreys, 2000). because the children had been living in Germany for over a year now (This was due to the fact that the case was dragged on despite the requests my lawyers and I made to have the case speeded up) and because they were in German schools and adapting well, it would cause undue stress to have then moved back to the US. (Vajko, 2000).
 
A German court ruled in 1995 that the children had bonded with the foster family and would suffer if they were returned to their father. (CNN, 2000).  Economic incentives also exist today for German abductors.  German courts are  issuing orders for American parents to pay child support for their illegally kidnapped child whom they are denied access to. German foster care families receive money from the German government on a monthly basis.  The amount of money these foster care families receive is dependent on the number of children they have taken in. Wehs, who have six foster children and get paid the equivalent of $1,000 a month for each (Jeffreys, 2000).
 
I have done nothing wrong, have always played by the rules of the German courts, have continued paying child support, but have not seen my children in almost six years. Physical and psychological bonds have been severed between two children and a father who loves them. (Gebhard, 2000).
 
Today‘s internationally abducted children find themselves searching for answers and some sense of identity in their adult years.  Many of the Lebensborn children are now grandparents and a new generation of lost children are being harvested by Germany.
 
As adults, many victims of bitter custody battles who had been permanently removed from a target parent, whisked away to a new town and given a new identity, still long to be reunited with the lost parent.  The loss cannot be undone.  Childhood cannot be recaptured.  Gone forever is that sense of history, intimacy, lost input of values and morals, self-awareness through knowing one1s beginnings, love, contact with extended family, and much more. Virtually no child possesses the ability to protect him-or herself against such an undignified and total loss. (Clawar & Rivlin, p.105).

Germany is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.  This international treaty sets forth ideals regarding the basic rights of children.  This treaty addresses issues of parental abduction and the right of every child to know their parent and extended family members.  It provides for the ethnic protection of children and for children and parents to have access to each without fear of reprisal from governments.  The ideals and beliefs that children have rights and are entitled to certain protection are the to be ensured by the signatory country.  

Germany has not only failed in implementing the Hague Convention, but has grossly infringed on the basic rights of the child as defined in the Child‘s Rights Convention by arguing the best interests of the child resembling many of the Lebensborn ideals, polices and practices.  There is no room in the civilized world for the barbaric and inhuman practices against children to continue, regardless of how well disguised under the auspices of best interests of the child, in programs such as the Lebensborn or refusing to return children because they have been Germanized. The German social and welfare attitudes based in the Lebensborn ideology have failed to recognize abduction and denial of access as abuse, just as the SS refused to consider the State ordering of child abduction to be Crimes against Humanity. 

The current practice of German authorities in the handling of the vast majority of children abducted to Germany, not only of children from American, but also from countries like France, likewise are not handled nor viewed as child abuse.  A closer look at the attitudes that continue to influence the German system, supporting abduction and Germanization, may provide a basis for restructuring that system so that it falls within the acceptable western norm in regards to the handling of children‘s issues.

Dabbagh & Associates
P.O. Box 134
Capron, VA 23829
434-658-3050
MaureenDabbagh@aol.com

References

Châtel, Vincent & Ferree, Chuck: The Forgotten Camps .1997-2000 http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/LebensbornEng.html, 2000.
 
Children of the Holocaust. The Life of Amalia Dembitzer . Copyright© 1995-2000, The Simon Wiesenthal Center. http://www.wiesenthal.com/children/damalia.html, Aug, 2000.

Clawar SS, Rivlin BV: Children held Hostage: Dealing with programmed and brainwashed children. ABA Family Law, ISBM No. 0-89707-6281.

U.S. and German Leaders to tackel international child-custody dispute. CNN Wire Service. May 31, 2000. 

EKD: Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland. 2000. www.ekd.de, Aug, 2000.  Faulkner, Nancy, Ph.D.: Parental Child Abduction is Child Abuse. Geneva, Switzerland. United Nations, Human Rights Commission. 1999.
 
Gebhard, Glenn: Glenn Gebhard1s Case Summary.
http://www.rheashope.com/pact/members/gebhard/index.shtml,  2000.

Gerbatsch-Bornemisza, Ildiko, M.D.: Case Summary.
http://www.rheashope.com/pact/members/gerbatsch/index.shtml, 2000.

Germany Embassy: German-American Cooperation in Implemention of the Hague. Germany Embassy homepage. 2000.
www.germany-info.org/.newcontent/index_governemtn.html, Aug, 2000.

Gilbert, Martin: Final Journey. New York, Mayflower Books, Inc., 1979.
 
1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.  Netherlands. Treaty.
http://travel.state.gov/hague_childabduction.html. Aug, 2000.

Hammer, Joshua : Hitler1s children. Newsweek , March 20, 2000
http://www.rickross.com/reference/hate_groups/hategroups164.html,

Hooper, John: Nazi1s aryan scheme exposed, Berlin: Sydney Morning herald, 1999.

Himmler, Heinrich, [This speech was recorded; the magnetic tapes are in the national archives in Washington, DC] Speech by Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler at Kharkow, April 1943 [Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression - Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1946, Vol. IV, p. 572-574]

106th CONGRESS, 2d Session, H. CON. RES. 293. Urging compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. 2000. www.thomas.state.gov

Letter from Dr. Hilfrich, Bishop of Limburg, to the Reich Minister of Justice, August 13 1941 [Trials of War Criminals Before
the Nuernberg Military Tribunals - Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1949-1953, Vol. I, p. 845-846]

Marquette, Robert: Case Summary.
http://www.rheashope.com/pact/members/marquette/index.shtml,  2000.
 
Letter from the Minister of State for the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia to Rudolph Brandt, June 13 1944, Concerning Children of Executed Czechs [Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals - Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1949-1953, Vol. IV, p. 1030-1032] http://www.vwc.edu/library_tech/wwwpages/dgraf/nazidocs.txt, Aug, 2000.