This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS VIENNA 000301 
 
SIPDIS 
 
CA/OCS/CI FOR ECONWAY AND GDEBOER; EUR/AGS FOR VVIKMANIS- 
KELLER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KOCI CASC AU
SUBJECT: SYLVESTER HAGUE CASE: ACTION REQUEST COMPLETED 
 
REF:  A) VIENNA 92  B) STATE 2469 
 
¶1. SUMMARY: REF B was an action request instructing post 
to meet with the Austrian Central Authority (ACA), 
contact the Austrian attorney representing Tom Sylvester, 
and attend the March 15, 2006 hearing on his Article 21 
Hague Access Case.  REF A reported on our meeting with 
the ACA on January 11, 2006.  This telegram provides the 
gist of our discussions with the Austrian attorney, 
including a telephone call and a personal visit in 
conjunction with a prison visit to the same area.  END 
SUMMARY. 
 
¶2. Conoff and Legal Assistant met with Austrian attorney 
Martina Weirer at her office in Graz on January 24 for 
almost two hours and referred to the talking points 
provided in Ref B.  The tone was cordial and Weirer 
seemed eager to talk.  Weirer confirmed what the ACA had 
earlier told us (ref A), that the court did not/not 
oppose informal access by Tom Sylvester to his child; 
that in order to avoid having to rule against Tom 
Sylvester because of his daughter's obstinate reluctance 
for contact the court had instituted a "breathing space" 
of some nine months in order to make his daughter feel 
under less pressure over visitation in the hope her 
attitude would soften; and that the court felt strongly 
that Tom Sylvester indeed ought to have visitation/access 
with his daughter. (Embassy comment: Thus, Ref B is 
somewhat in error is stating that during the last hearing 
in November, the judge ordered no access.  This would be 
neither the understanding of the ACA nor of the attorney 
in the case). 
 
¶3.  Weirer had not been aware that Tom Sylvester had not 
been able to telephone his daughter since July 2005, nor 
that Monika Sylvester had failed to provide him with the 
daughter's email address, as had been agreed in court. 
She said she would immediately request the email address 
from opposing council. 
 
¶4. According to Weirer, the most difficult issue for the 
court is the child's refusal to see her father.  As we 
have heard before, in the absence of hard proof of 
alienation or coercion there is no legal basis under 
Austrian law to force access against the will of a child 
of this age.  Weirer added that the court psychologist 
would talk to the child again sometime before the court 
date but cautioned that Austrian judges are generally 
reluctant to order visitation that may be difficult to 
enforce because of the resistance of the child. 
 
¶5. If on March 15 the court were to rule against Tom 
Sylvester's application, Weirer plans to appeal to a 
higher court on the grounds that the daughter is indeed 
an 'alienated child.'  She said she would also refer to 
the ECHR ruling in requesting that Austria meet its 
obligation to end the violation of their right to a 
family life. 
 
¶6. Regarding consular attendance at the March hearing, 
Weirer said she would raise the possibility with the 
judge once she has her client's authorization. Weirer 
thought our presence at the hearing could "not hurt" but 
explained that Monika Sylvester's attorney had the option 
to oppose our attendance and she, Weirer, did not think 
the issue was worth fighting over. 
 
¶7. Finally, she would not favor a motion to remove the 
judge because it would slow down the appeals process. 
The judge could not in any event be removed until she had 
rendered a final decision on the application, and some 
hard proof of bias would be required.  Weirer also said 
that it was not unusual for a judge to follow the 
recommendations of the child psychologist. She did not 
see the judge's behavior as biased or especially 
difficult, and said that among the other judges this 
judge was particularly well-regarded. 
 
¶8. Post will follow up with a telegram on the March 15 
hearing, per ref B, regardless of whether we are able to 
be present or not.  We will continue to work with the 
attorney to press for attendance. 
 
MCCAW