Panama - Child Abduction

PANAMA 

The Department has cited Panama’s compliance problems in previous editions of this report.  After making progress in 2003 in its handling of its Hague responsibilities (passage of new legislation, training for judges, and good communication from the Central Authority), in 2004 Panama’s performance deteriorated and it once again demonstrated systemic problems with Hague Convention compliance. 

The Panamanian Central Authority (PCA) has not processed Hague applications expeditiously, and communication with the Office of Children’s Issues (CI) has been inconsistent.  In the only case in which a decision was actually rendered during the reporting period, the PCA did not inform CI that the left-behind parent lost the case.  CI learned of the case’s outcome six months after the decision was rendered only by contacting the U.S. family of the left-behind parent.  Since then, CI has attempted repeatedly to contact the PCA to learn more about the case outcome, but has received no response. 

The failure of Panamanian authorities to locate children continues to create enormous and unnecessary delays in resolving cases, and we have not seen any steps being taken to remedy the situation.  On the contrary, in at least two cases, U.S. consular staff provided the PCA with detailed information concerning the whereabouts of abducted children, and still there was no action on the part of the PCA to investigate and confirm the locations of these children so that the Hague applications could move forward to the courts. 

We also have serious concerns in the area of judicial performance.  The huge backlogs of cases that are endemic to the Panamanian court system have created lengthy delays in Hague proceedings.  In some cases it takes months for a hearing date to be set, and in one case no date has been set despite the fact that the Hague application was filed over a year ago.  Panamanian authorities have made no efforts to expedite the way in which courts handle Hague abduction cases.  Once Hague cases do come to court, judges commonly order psychological evaluations of the children and parents and generally approach cases as if they were custody cases, an approach which contradicts the objects of the Hague Abduction Convention.  Despite initial attempts to restrict Hague cases to a limited number of trained judges and courts, it seems cases are being filed in whatever courts are closest to the child’s location, and the judges who do sit on the appropriate courts change frequently, making it difficult for those courts to retain the experience that would enable Hague cases to be handled appropriately.  Although the PCA has stated that judges are being offered Hague Convention training, we have seen no positive effects from this training on case processing or decisions.