I just wonder what the dutch goverment will do? This is KIDNAPPING and they US consulate (employees or collectively) should be accounted for this charge. But everybody stays quiet when it is for uncle sam.

By kos | June 2, 2009 12:10 PM

If US Courts gave him full custody as he claims, that would explain his right to grant her passport based on his signature alone, if not they almost certainly would not have granted him the passport.

I am certain under the circumstances, an inquiry within the US State Department will automatically be instigated.

Presuming though that this is the case (custody), there is no legal issue from the US perspective, mind you travel for either to Europe is now not recommended.

By Solkhar | June 2, 2009 12:29 PM

Not KIDNAPPING....The U.S court issued the man full custody, he has the right to pick up his child and take the child where he likes. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. rule 3 states when The child has been "wrongfully removed or retained" in breach of rights of custody under the law of the State of the child's habitually residence. Hers was the U.S where she was KIDNAPPED to begin with. The Convention is not a vehicle for deciding child access questions. Instead, its main purpose is to ensure that abducted children are returned to the country of habitual residence. It presumes that such disputes are properly resolved in the country where the child habitually resides. And this was done in a court of law in the U.S. A party may also initiate judicial proceedings in the nation where the child is located. In the United States, federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over Hague Convention cases. A U.S. state or federal court must give full faith and credit to the judgment of any other U.S. state or federal court entered in an action brought under the Convention. One federal appeals court has held that decisions of the courts of foreign nations under the Convention are not entitled to full faith and credit; however, they are entitled to deference under principles of international comity. Diorinou v Mezitis, 237 F2d 133, 142-143 (CA 2, 2001). There is nothing that can be done now, if the mother returns to the U.S there is a good chance she will be arrested for child kidnapping...

By DR | June 2, 2009 1:49 PM

And if the father returns to Europe there is chance he is arrested for child kidnapping, the poor child in the middle.. :(

By Nicco | June 2, 2009 4:40 PM

@DR...so the US court ruled in one way..what if a ukrainian court issued a different way? or it does in the future..who is correct?
the case should go on court here in the netherlands were the couple was living. US court has no authority on that.
obviously the true victim is the child.

By kos | June 2, 2009 9:18 PM

To begin with, the child has both parents as her biological identity. She does not belong to the mother alone. No mattewr what, the child must have some affection for her father becuase she went with him - and left her mum - not screamimng be rescued. I am sure if the mother had respected the right of the child to be with her father also, to have both parents are loving individuals for her sake, this might not have happened. I am sure the mother was holding her child as a captive to her own 'fight'to show the father, she has the rights to stay and keep her child. Mothers, in such cases must learn that, A BREAK IN THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FATHER OF THE CHILD MUST NOT BE VISITED ON INNOCENT CHILDREN. CHILDREN HAVE RIGHTS TOO!!

By toniart | June 2, 2009 11:07 PM

The child is kidnapped, she was screaming, and her loving father put his hand on her mouth. If he returns to Europe, l'll hope he gets a penalty for at least 20 years!
I'm sick and tired of those americans that think they can control The Netherlands, we must do something about that!

By Bowe | June 3, 2009 10:29 AM

The child dit not go with him she was taken by force from the play yard of here school the father even held his hand on her mouth so she could not scream.
Further more the divorce was because the father abused them
The child was afraid of him. And tried to call the police on here mobile

The American court dit not send the custody papers to the Dutch court were there also was a custody trial in process, because this abduction was not done true the proper cancels it was kidnapping.

By the way dit you no the father was Dutch

By Dutch woman | June 3, 2009 12:51 PM

To Nicco: The father did not break any law in the EU. He was able to follow the rules of the Haag convention so he would not be arrested if he returns to the EU. TO KOS: The mother should have filed in the Ukrain but she didn't.. Not sure for super sure the Ukrain is part of the Haag convention. But it is all spilt milk now. The child in back in the U.S and if the mother wants to do something about it she has many many options. for starters she is allowed to take her husband to court every 6 month for a full custody hearing. But lets not forget....The woman just up and TOOK this chid out of spite. To inflict emotional damage on the father. thats what this is about. The father is not some child beater or child molester. He is the father. She should have tried to work this out for the better, but she did not. This is the result. If the Ukranin court had a hearing now giving the mother custody it would be moot at this point. Since it would be just flag waving and more like a kangaroo court show. Also they do not live there so the court has no say, nor does the child to my knowledge hold a passport for that country. Don't forget this is not just U.S law this is the law excepted by the international community. This is the Haag convention!

By DR | June 3, 2009 1:42 PM

This is not the haag convention
US ruling does not mean dutch ruling does not count. but that both countreys have to work on the issue
by the way he is a pilot and takes the poor child away from everyting she nows
and in the care of his his wife who is a stranger to the child.

Nice

By Dutch woman | June 3, 2009 3:41 PM

@DR..did the US court notify the mother so that she could express her arguments?
if not...then the decision is illegal as every party should be aware that a trial is taking place.
if yes..what happens if the mother could not afford the case in the US??

p.s. i dont know the whole case but people say that there was a trial happening here as well.
and moreover if the father had the US court decision what did he have to kidnap the child and not go the legal way..i.e. as you say since the decision is "recognised" here the dutch courts would recognise it and then the father with the escort of police or whatever authority could take the child legally.Obviously in the way he did it shtng was going wrong for him.

By kos | June 3, 2009 7:38 PM

If this makes a difference in your opinion, the father has been married at least 5 times in the US alone. God only knows how many times and where across the globe he was or still has been married. The mother was brought into the US illegally. The father, a Dutch citizen at that time, arranged (paid to be precise a US citizen) to bring the mother on a fiancée visa to the US. The father married the mother and never told her she was supposed to leave the US and wait for the adjustment of her status OUTSIDE of the US. The mother got pregnant and problems (abuse) have started shortly thereafter.
Only then the mother found out that she was illegal and had no rights. With the
Legal help she had in the US the mother was able to relocate to Netherlands where the father was originally from and had family. A consideration was given for father’s easiest access to his daughter as part of the relocation deal the father and the mother struck. Since 2003 until the conflict erupted in Netherlands the father didn’t seek to take his daughter back to the US. It was convenient then to have the mother as a sole care giver, have all the time in the world (he is a pilot) to shop for a new wife and see his daughter when time permitted. The mother was abused in Netherlands and there was a restraining order all this time. The father was engaged in the court battle in Netherlands, lost there, became a US citizen and started the proceedings in the US. Convenient, isn’t?
The father says he was afraid that the mother would’ve taken his daughter to the Ukraine had she known he was awarded full custody in the US. The mother wanted the best for her daughter and Netherlands far better country to grow up and live in than Ukraine.
The mother agreed to relocate to Netherlands instead of her native country of Ukraine for that reason. What the father is not mentioning that the mother’s alertness would had been heightened had she known that he had a US court order in his favor. Had the mother known it, this could’ve been prevented.

By US friend | June 4, 2009 2:24 AM

Sad to hear that dear daddy Paul arranged a child psycologist for Katja. She wouldn't need it if she was a child from to adult parents who went to the therapist themselves a long time ago. I would still advise the father to go. I can understand if your ex hold your child from you, this can lead to terrible situations, but wat
is realy not normal towards your own child, is that you don't think of her, of her wishes, live, fears en tears. Selfish people like him want to winn, want to show out of revenge how it is to not see your child anymore. Who cares about feelings of the mum or dead? They made their descisions and are bleeding for that. Katje wasn't able to make any decision in her live until know....... how would that feel.
I feel deeply sorrow for her.

By Sandra Langeveld | June 4, 2009 7:24 PM

By the way, Katya was born in USA. She is US citizen. That means Holland and Ukraine is nothing to do with her. The mother used her daughter as the reason to take money from her ex. She has governmental help, and ofcourse she doesn't want to go back in Ukraine.
But the question is: what is she doing in Holland?

By Ella | June 22, 2009 5:17 AM

Why all the focus on the parents. It is clear that one of them will be happy and the other one unhappy. Why does nobody care what Katya wants.

By Sandra | June 23, 2009 9:13 AM

To US Friends:
Actually, information you have not quite correct. Katya is US citizen. She was born in USA. Her mother is Ukrainian citizen. She was in Holland only because her ex. Now she do not have right even stay in this country. She never have been abused. She use this very convenient "sad stories" to take advantages from her ex and from Holland. She needs to go back to Ukraine. She has debts in USA with credit card for more than $8,000.00, and she never paid it back. She is not "poor" victim. She is a very agressive woman who lives in hate. Marina hated her father, she was raised in the hate to him. Now Katya is very happy! Finally she has a very good and loving family. There are many people who wants to take advantage from our contries.We shouldn't be so naive and trust them complitely.

By Ella | June 23, 2009 4:07 PM