Call to action to support Senate Resolution 543-International Parental Child Abduction

Thanks to Jeffery Morehouse and Randy Collins of BACHome for their hard work on this.  They have contacted all 85 Senate offices that have not yet co-sponsored Senate Resolution 543 and are continuing to follow up with them, and they need your help with this effort.  Please contact senators you are constituents of and ask them to co-sponsor and support this legislation.

The following is a link to the bachome.org site with contact information for the Senate offices, and we have also republished it below for your immediate reference.

http://www.bachome.org/wordpress/2012/08/contact-your-senator-about-intl-child-abduction/

Contact Your Senator About Intl. Child Abduction

Thursday, August 23rd, 2012

In 2011 at least 1367 American children were abducted by a parent to a foreign country. Most will never have a chance to come home to their families and communities in the U.S.

You can help today by emailing your U.S. Senator(s) and urging them to co-sponsor Senate Resolution 543  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112sres543is/pdf/BILLS-112sres543is.pdf

Here’s how:

1) Use the chart below to find your Senator(s)

2) If they haven’t already co-sponsored, click the email link to their staff member

3) Email them* (Optionally you can call)

4) Ask your friends and family to do the same by sending them this link.

With your commitment to help we can create change to protect families in the future and help bring abducted children home now.

______________________________________________________________________________________

*HERE IS THE SUGGESTED EMAIL

Subject Line: S. Res 543- International Parental Child Abduction

I am a registered voter and a constituent. I would like the Senator to co-sponsor Senate Resolution 543

because American children need to be protected. In 2011 alone, at least 1367 American children were abducted by a parent to a foreign country.

Sincerely Yours,

[First & Last Name]

[City, State]

______________________________________________________________________________________

URGENT: The Deadline to Contact Your Senator(s) to Co-Sponsor S. Res 543 is in 16 days, 9 hours, 45 minutes

SENATOR INFO			STAFF MEMBER INFO
First	Last Name	State	First	Last	e-mail address	Phone            (202 Area Code)	S. Res. 543                      Co-sponsor Status
Mark	Begich	AK	David	Ramseur	david_ramseur@begich.senate.gov	224-3004
Lisa	Murkowski	AK	Nathan	Bergerbest	nathan_bergerbest@murkowski.senate.gov	224-6665
Richard	Shelby	AL	Kevin	Kane	kevin_kane@shelby.senate.gov	224-5744
John	Boozman	AR	Toni-Marie	Higgins	toni-marie_higgins@boozman.senate.gov	224-4843
Mark	Pryor	AR	Sarah	Holland	sarah_holland@pryor.senate.gov	224-2353
Jon	Kyl	AZ	Tim	Morrison	tim_morrison@kyl.senate.gov	224-4521
John	McCain	AZ	Elizabeth	Lopez	elizabeth_lopez@mccain.senate.gov	224-2235
Barbara	Boxer	CA	Ariana	Reks	ariana_reks@boxer.senate.gov	224-3553	Sponsor
Diane	Feinstein	CA	Richard	Harper	richard_harper@feinstein.senate.gov	224-3841	Co-sponsor
Michael	Bennet	CO	Sergio	Gonzales	sergio_gonzales@bennet.senate.gov	224-5852
Mark	Udall	CO	Casey	Howard	casey_howard@markudall.senate.gov	224-5941
Richard	Blumenthal	CT	Ethan	Saxon	ethan_saxon@blumenthal.senate.gov	224-2823
Joe	Lieberman	CT	?	?	?	224-4041
Thomas	Carper	DE	Olivia	Hayden	olivia_hayden@carper.senate.gov	224-2441
Christopher	Coons	DE	Halie	Soifer	halie_soifer@coons.senate.gov	224-5042
Bill	Nelson	FL	Marin	Stein	marin_stein@billnelson.senate.gov	224-5274
Marco	Rubio	FL	Victor	Cervino	victor_cervino@rubio.senate.gov	224-3041	Co-sponsor
Saxby	Chambliss	GA	Brandon	Bell	brandon_bell@chambliss.senate.gov	224-3521
Johnny	Isakson	GA	Chris	Sullivan	chris_sullivan@isakson.senate.gov	224-3643
Daniel	Akaka	HI	Nick	Ikeda	nick_ikeda@akaka.senate.gov	224-6361
Daniel	Inouye	HI	Mary	Yoshioka	mary_yoshioka@inouye.senate.gov	224-3934
Chuck	Grassley	IA	Kurt	Kovarik	kurt_kovarik@grassley.senate.gov	224-3744
Tom	Harkin	IA	Rosemary	Gutierrez	rosemary_gutierrez@harkin.senate.gov	224-3254
Mike	Crapo	ID	Ken	Flanz	ken_flanz@crapo.senate.gov	224-6142
James	Risch	ID	Chris	Socha	chris_socha@risch.senate.gov	224-2752
Richard	Durbin	IL	Ms. Erum	Ibrahim	erum_ibrahim@durbin.senate.gov	224-2152
Mark	Kirk	IL	Gretchen	Blum	gretchen_blum@kirk.senate.gov	224-2854	Co-sponsor
Daniel	Coats	IN	Terry	Snell	terry_snell@coats.senate.gov	224-5623
Richard	Lugar*	IN	Keith	Luse	keith_luse@lugar.senate.gov	224-4814	Co-sponsor
Jerry	Moran	KS	Jason	Wiens	jason_wiens@moran.senate.gov	224-6521
Pat	Roberts	KS	Theda	Owens	theda_owens@roberts.senate.gov	224-4774
Mitch	McConnell	KY	Reb	Brownell	reb_brownell@mcconnell.senate.gov	224-2541
Rand	Paul	KY	Brandon	Brooker	brandon_brooker@HSGAC.senate.gov	224-4343
Mary	Landrieu	LA	Libby	Whitbeck	libby_whitbeck@landrieu.senate.gov	224-5824	Co-sponsor
David	Vitter	LA	Josh	Hodges	josh_hodges@vitter.senate.gov	224-4623
Scott	Brown	MA	William	Wright	william_wright@scottbrown.senate.gov	224-4543
John	Kerry**	MA	Jeremy	D’Aliosio	jeremy_d’aloisio@kerry.senate.gov	224-2742	Co-sponsor
Benjamin	Cardin	MD	Katharine	Beamer	katharine_beamer@cardin.senate.gov	224-4524	Co-sponsor
Barbara	Mikulski	MD	Erin	Neill	erin_neill@mikulski.senate.gov	224-4654	Co-sponsor
Susan	Collins	ME	Peter	Halvorsen	peter_halvorsen@collins.senate.gov	224-2523
Olympia	Snowe	ME	Don	Green	don_green@snowe.senate.gov	224-5344
Carl	Levin	MI	Michael	Kuiken	michael_kuiken@armed-services.senate.com	224-6221
Debbie	Stabenow	MI	Doug	Messana	doug_messana@stabenow.senate.gov	224-4822
Al	Franken	MN	Jeff	Lomonaco	jeff_lomonaco@franken.senate.gov	224-5641
Amy	Klobuchar	MN	Marian	Grove	marian_grove@klobuchar.senate.gov	224-3244
Roy	Blunt	MO	Brian	Diffell	brian_diffell@blunt.senate.gov	224-5721
Claire	McCaskill	MO	Jason	Rauch	jason_rauch@mccaskill.senate.gov	224-6154
Thad	Cochran	MS	Will	Todd	will_todd@cochran.senate.gov	224-5054
Roger	Wicker	MS	Sarah	Drake	sarah_drake@wicker.senate.gov	224-6253
Max	Baucus	MT	Brittany	Beaulieu	brittany_beaulieu@baucus.senate.gov	224-2651
Jon	Tester	MT	Tony	McClain	tony_mcclain@tester.senate.gov	224-2644
Richard	Burr	NC	Cynthia	Ramos	cynthia_ramos@burr.senate.gov	224-3154
Kay	Hagan	NC	Rikkia	Ramsey	rikkia_ramsey@hagan.senate.gov	224-6342
Kent	Conrad	ND	Nathaniel	Luvtosky	nathaniel_luvtosky@conrad.senate.gov	224-2043
John	Hoeven	ND	Josh	Carter	josh_carter@hoeven.senate.gov	224-2551
Mike	Johanns	NE	Erin	Jeffery	erin_jeffery@johanns.senate.gov	224-4224
Ben	Nelson	NE	Ryan	Ehly	ryan_ehly@bennelson.senate.gov	224-6551
Kelly	Ayotte	NH	Brad	Bowman	brad_bowman@ayotte.senate.gov	224-3324
Jeanne	Shaheen	NH	Joel	Colony	joel_colony@shaheen.senate.gov	224-2841
Frank	Lautenberg	NJ	Allison	Peters	allinson_peters@lautenberg.senate.gov	224-3224	Co-sponsor
Robert	Menendez	NJ	Ryan	Sellinger	ryan_sellinger@menendez.senate.gov	224-4744
Jeff	Bingaman	NM	Jeffry	Phan	jeffry_phan@bingaman.senate.gov	224-5521
Tom	Udall	NM	Matthew	Padilla	matthew_padilla@tomudall.senate.gov	224-6621
Dean	Heller	NV	Josh	Finestone	josh_finestone@heller.senate.gov	224-6244
Harry	Reid	NV	Jessica	Lewis	jessica_lewis@reid.senate.gov	224-3542
Kirsten	Gillibrand	NY	Elena	Broitman	elena_broitman@gillibrand.senate.gov	224-4451	Co-sponsor
Chuck	Schumer	NY	Erin	Vaughn	erin_vaughn@schumer.senate.gov	224-6542
Sherrod	Brown	OH	Doug	Babcock	doug_babcock@brown.senate.gov	224-2315
Rob	Portman	OH	Brent	Bombach	brent_bombach@portman.senate.gov	224-3353
Tom	Coburn	OK	Jeremy	Hayes	jeremy_hayes@coburn.senate.gov	224-5754
James	Inhofe	OK	Joel	Starr	joel_starr@inhofe.senate.gov	224-4721	Co-sponsor
Jeff	Merkley	OR	Will	White	will_white@merkley.senate.gov	224-3753	Co-sponsor
Ron	Wyden	OR	Isaiah	Akin	isaiah_akin@wyden.senate.gov	224-5244
Robert	Casey	PA	Damian	Murphy	damian_murphy@casey.senate.gov	224-6324
Patrick	Toomey	PA	Dan	Adelstein	dan_adelstein@toomey.senate.gov	224-4254
Jack	Reed	RI	Carolyn	Chuhta	carolyn_chuhta@reed.senate.gov	224-4642
Sheldon	Whitehouse	RI	Ben	Weiner	ben_weiner@whitehouse.senate.gov	224-2921
Jim	DeMint	SC	Robert	Moore	robert_moore@demint.senate.gov	224-6121
Lindsey	Graham	SC	Matt	Rimkunas	matt_rimkunas@graham.senate.gov	224-5972
Tim	Johnson	SD	Karen	Kunze	karen_kunze@johnson.senate.gov	224-5842
John	Thune	SD	Jason	VanBeek	jason_vanbeek@thune.senate.gov	224-2321
Lamar	Alexander	TN	Erin	Reif	erin_reif@alexander.senate.gov	224-4944
Bob	Corker	TN	Stacie	Oliver	stacie_oliver@corker.senate.gov	224-3344
John	Cornyn	TX	E. Grace	Smitham	grace_smitham@cornyn.senate.gov	224-2934
Kay Bailey	Hutchison	TX	Coalter	Baker	coalter_baker@hutchison.senate.gov	224-5922
Orrin	Hatch	UT	William	Castle	william_castle@hatch.senate.gov	224-5251
Mike	Lee	UT	Miriam	Harmer	miriam_harmer@lee.senate.gov	224-5444
Mark	Warner	VA	Manica	Noziglia	manica_noziglia@warner.senate.gov	224-2023
Jim	Webb	VA	Marta	McLellanRoss	marta_mclellanross@webb.senate.gov	224-4024
Patrick	Leahy	VT	Tim	Rieser	tim_rieser@leahy.senate.gov	224-4242	Co-sponsor
Bernard	Sanders	VT	Huck	Gutman	huck_gutman@sanders.senate.gov	224-5141
Maria	Cantwell	WA	Spencer	Launer	spencer_launer@cantwell.senate.gov	224-3441
Patty	Murray	WA	Lauren Renee	Overman	lauren_overman@murray.senate.gov	224-4607	Co-sponsor
Ron	Johnson	WI	Alan	Elias	alan_elias@ronjohnson.senate.gov	224-5323
Herb	Kohl	WI	Harry	Stein	harry_stein@kohl.senate.gov	224-5653
Joe	Manchin	WV	Mr. Lee	Garton	lee_garton@manchin.senate.gov	224-3954
John	Rockefeller	WV	Nate	Adler	nate_adler@rockefeller.senate.gov	224-6472
John	Barrasso	WY	Amber	Bland	amber_bland@barrasso.senate.gov	224-6441
Michael	Enzi	WY	Wendy	Gnehm	wendy_gnehm@enzi.senate.gov	224-3424

Share

Advertisements

“Black Hole” protest planned in Seattle area on September 8, 1:30 PM PDT

https://www.facebook.com/events/455708434462771/

If you are in the Seattle area, come join in the protest at the Consulate-General of Japan booth at the Aki Matsuri festival at the Bellevue College Main Campus 3000 Landerholm Circle SE, Bellevue, WA 98007. Contact Jeffery Morehouse with any specific questions. We will meet up at the Tully’s Coffee at 3080 148th Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 98007 to hand out the “Black Hole” t-shirts in advance.

More on Keisuke’s Law

NBC interview with Randy Collins:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/video/#!/on-air/as-seen-on/OC-Father-Champions-Bill-to-Prevent-Parental-Abductions/167124775

Press Releases from Senator Mimi Walters: Legislature Sends Two of Senator Walters’ Bills to Governor For Immediate Release: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 Contact: Everett Rice @ (916) 651-4033 SACRAMENTO — Today, two bills authored by Senator Mimi Walters (R-Irvine), SB 1206 and SB 1174, were approved unanimously by the Legislature and now make their way to Governor Jerry Brown’s desk. SB 1206, also known as Keisuke’s (Case-K’s) Law, would prevent parents in a custody dispute from applying for new or replacement passports for their children without consent from the other parent.  In addition, the measure would allow the District Attorney to order a freeze on the California assets of an individual who is alleged to have abducted a child. This bill was introduced at the request of a constituent, whose son, Keisuke, was abducted to Japan from Orange County in June 2008 and has not been returned.  Since his son’s abduction Randy Collins has committed his life to deterring future child abductions.  SB 1206 was approved by the State Senate on a 37-0 vote. The California Senate also approved SB 1174 on a 36-0 vote.  The measure would allow 56-foot motorsports trailers to operate within California.  Currently, California is the only state that does not allow these vehicles to drive within its borders.  This prohibition has created a disincentive for racing organizations and teams to attend events held at California race tracks.  SB 1174 removes a needless barrier to transporting racing vehicles and team equipment in California.  As a result, the bill will enhance local economies by encouraging NASCAR and NHRA teams to continue bringing their cars to California and participating in local racing events. ###

Passage of Keisuke’s Law being noted in Japanese media

Keisuke’s Law has been unanimously passed in the California legislature.  The news is started to be noted in the Japanese media.  Hopefully this legislation will become an important tool in helping prevent future child abductions to Japan:

http://www.47news.jp/news/2012/08/post_20120821140001.html#fb-root

“Abnormalities” traced back to Fukushima radioactive fallout

News reports like this are extremely worrisome to U.S. left-behind parents as well as parents in other countries with abducted dual citizen children being held in Japan.  A number of these children are believed to be living in or very near the Fukushima radiation zone.  The best interests of the child need to be considered by both the Japanese and foreign governments in cases such as this where the child’s future health is at risk.  Particularly troubling is the finding that “abnormal” traits doubled among the second generation born, with radiation damage intensifying in future generations.

http://news.yahoo.com/japan-nuclear-accident-abnormalities-butterflies-traced-fukushima-plant-153553981–abc-news-topstories.html

Japan Nuclear Accident: ‘Abnormalities’ in Butterflies Traced to Fukushima Plant

By Akiko Fujita | ABC News – Mon, Aug 13, 2012

Japanese scientists say “abnormalities” detected in the country’s butterflies may be a result of radioactive fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster last year. In a study published in Scientific Reports, an online journal, researchers say “artificial radionuclides” from the Fukushima Daiichi power plant caused “physiological and genetic damage” to pale grass blue butterflies.

Scientists first began tracking common butterflies around the nuclear plant two months after the disaster. They collected 121 insects, and found 12 percent of them had unusually small wings. That number jumped more than 5 percent when butterflies collected from the plant site had offspring of their own.

In another group of butterflies collected six months after the disaster, scientists found 28 percent had “abnormal” traits. That number nearly doubled among the second generation born.

“At the time of the accident, the populations of this species were overwintering as larvae and were externally exposed to artificial radiation,” the researchers wrote in their study. “It is possible that they ate contaminated leaves during the spring and were thus also exposed to internal radiation.”

It has been 17 months after the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl, and its effects on human health have largely been considered minimal, with no radiation-related deaths or illnesses reported so far. But traces of radioactive cesium exceeding government safety levels have been detected in seafood off the Fukushima coast, limiting the catch for fisherman there.

Tiny amounts of cesium of 137 and cesium 134 were detected in more than a dozen bluefin tuna caught near San Diego in August last year. The levels were 10 times higher than tuna found in previous years, but well below those the Japanese and US governments considered harmful to human health.

Another child abducted to Japan from Seattle

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Charge-Unhappy-with-parenting-plan-Seattle-mom-3788325.php

 

Charge: Unhappy with parenting plan, Seattle mom took daughter to Japan

Mom latest of several such parents to face such charges in King County

BY LEVI PULKKINEN, SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF

Published 11:10 p.m., Tuesday, August 14, 2012

A Seattle mom accused of fleeing the country with her young daughter during a custody dispute is now facing felony charges in King County.

Prosecutors there claim Ryoko Fukuda absconded with her daughter the day she was supposed to hand over the girl’s Japanese passport.

According to charging documents, the girl’s father rushed to Sea-Tac Airport in an attempt to retrieve her. But prosecutors say Fukuda and the child were already flying to Japan.

Writing the court, Senior Deputy Prosecutor David Martin noted Fukuda had been ordered not to take the girl out of the country hours before she did exactly that.

Fukuda and the girl’s father dated but had broken up by the time Fukuda gave birth to the girl, Seattle Detective Jason Stolt told the court. The girl’s father and Fukuda each took out domestic violence protection orders against the other; the man told police he didn’t learn his daughter existed until 2009.

A parenting plan was first ordered in 2010. The plan gave the girl’s father visitation rights and required that either parent let the other know if their daughter was going to travel out of Washington.

On May 16, Fukuda, 34, and the girl’s father met with a King County court commissioner to discuss Fukuda’s plan to take the child to Japan. The girl’s father objected to the move.

The commissioner ordered both parents to surrender their daughter’s passports to Fukuda’s attorney for safekeeping until a final decision could be made. Stolt noted Fukuda had the girl’s Japanese passport.

At 2 p.m. the following day, the girl’s father called 911 to report that his daughter failed to arrive at her Broadview neighborhood elementary school that morning. Nor was the girl or Fukuda at their apartment.

Meeting with police an hour later, the man said Fukuda had failed to turn over their daughter’s Japanese passport. He said he was concerned Fukuda was preparing to flee the country, and he worried he’d never see his daughter again.

Leaving the meeting with police, the man drove to Sea-Tac Airport hoping to learn whether his daughter had been flown out of the country. With the help of Port of Seattle police and State Department officials, the man determined Fukuda and his daughter left the country at 2 a.m. that morning.

The detective told the court he has since confirmed that Fukuda and the girl are in Japan.

Fukuda has now been charged with first-degree custodial interference.

If similar cases filed in recent years are any measure, prosecutors will have a difficult time getting Fukuda before a King County judge.

Similar charges filed separately against two other Japanese women alleged to have fled the Seattle area for Japan have gone nowhere so far.

In 2009, Mayumi Ogawa fled the country weeks after a Superior Court judge approved an parenting plan stating that her son would split his time between his parents. The boy’s father has since been awarded sole control of the child, Ogawa remains at large and charged with first-degree custodial interference.

Michiyo Imoto Morehouse, 44, was charged with the same crime in 2010 after fleeing the country with her son. Her ex-husband had been awarded sole custody of the child; she remains at large.

In recent years, U.S. authorities have seen an increase in the number of international custodial child abductions. Watchdogs on the issue say there are currently more than 1,000 such open cases involving U.S. parents whose children have been taken overseas.

Speaking with seattlepi.com in 2009, Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said custodial child abduction is on the rise.

Unlike the United States and 80 other countries, the Japanese government has not ratified the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. The 29-year-old United Nations accord requires that member countries honor custody agreements made outside their borders unless doing so threatens the child involved.

Allen said that even when the country in question has signed on to the Hague Convention, a child’s return is not assured.

“The cases where we don’t get children returned aren’t just from places like Iran,” Allen said in March 2009. “There are a host of horror stories out there.”

Another recent case has had something of a happy ending.

After months of work, the Redmond mother of a boy whose father had taken him to Morocco was able to retrieve her son and return him to Washington. Still, the boy’s father, Mouad Aimane Elbou, has not faced the charge against him.

Check the Seattle 911 crime blog for more Seattle crime news. Visit seattlepi.com‘s home page for more Seattle news.

Levi Pulkkinen can be reached at 206-448-8348 or levipulkkinen@seattlepi.com. Follow Levi on Twitter at twitter.com/levipulk.

Keisuke’s Law to be voted on by California State Assembly

The California State Appropriations Committee has unanimously passed SB 1206 “Keisuke’s Law” 17-0. Now it is on to the full assembly for a vote. Keisuke’s Law has unanimously passed every committee so far (Senate Judiciary 5-0; State Senate 37-0; Assembly Judiciary 9-0; State Appropriations 17-0). Once it passes the state assembly it will go to Governor Brown for signature and protect children from being illegally abducted out of the country from California. Randy Collins, whose son Keisuke the law is named after, is largely responsible for getting this legislation off the ground and through the California state legislature.

 

Link and bill text:

 

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1201-1250/sb_1206_bill_20120806_amended_asm_v95.html

 

 

BILL NUMBER: SB 1206 AMENDEDBILL TEXT

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 6, 2012

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 2, 2012

AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 1, 2012

AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 12, 2012

INTRODUCED BY Senator Walters

FEBRUARY 22, 2012

An act to amend Sections 2040 and 3134.5 of the Family Code,

relating to child abduction prevention.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

SB 1206, as amended, Walters. Child abduction prevention.

(1) Existing law requires, upon the commencement of proceedings

for dissolution or nullity of marriage or legal separation of the

parties, that the summons contain a temporary restraining order

restraining both parties from, among other things, removing the minor

child or children of the parties, if any, from the state without the

prior written consent of the other party or an order of the court.

This bill would, additionally, provide that the temporary

restraining order restrain the parties from applying for a new or

replacement passport for the minor child or children of the parties

without the prior written consent of the other party or an order of

the court.

(2) Existing law authorizes the court, upon request of the

district attorney, to issue a protective custody warrant to secure

the recovery of an unlawfully detained or concealed child. The

protective custody warrant for the child is required to contain an

order that the arresting agency shall place the child in protective

custody, or return the child as directed by the court.

This bill would authorize the court to also include within the

protective custody warrant for the child an order to freeze the

California assets, as defined, of the party alleged to be in

possession of the child. The bill would provide that, upon noticed

motion, any order to freeze assets pursuant to these provisions may

be terminated, modified, or vacated by the court upon a finding that

the release of the assets will not jeopardize the safety or best

interest of the child. The bill would also require that if an asset

freeze order is entered pursuant to these provisions, and the court

subsequently dismisses the protective custody warrant for the child,

notice of the dismissal be immediately served on specified entities.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: no.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as Keisuke’s

Law.

SEC. 2. Section 2040 of the Family Code is amended to read:

2040. (a) In addition to the contents required by Section 412.20

of the Code of Civil Procedure, the summons shall contain a temporary

restraining order:

(1) Restraining both parties from removing the minor child or

children of the parties, if any, from the state, or from applying for

a new or replacement passport for the minor child or children,

without the prior written consent of the other party or an order of

the court.

(2) Restraining both parties from transferring, encumbering,

hypothecating, concealing, or in any way disposing of any property,

real or personal, whether community, quasi-community, or separate,

without the written consent of the other party or an order of the

court, except in the usual course of business or for the necessities

of life, and requiring each party to notify the other party of any

proposed extraordinary expenditures at least five business days

before incurring those expenditures and to account to the court for

all extraordinary expenditures made after service of the summons on

that party.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in the restraining order

shall preclude a party from using community property, quasi-community

property, or the party’s own separate property to pay reasonable

attorney’s fees and costs in order to retain legal counsel in the

proceeding. A party who uses community property or quasi-community

property to pay his or her attorney’s retainer for fees and costs

under this provision shall account to the community for the use of

the property. A party who uses other property that is subsequently

determined to be the separate property of the other party to pay his

or her attorney’s retainer for fees and costs under this provision

shall account to the other party for the use of the property.

(3) Restraining both parties from cashing, borrowing against,

canceling, transferring, disposing of, or changing the beneficiaries

of any insurance or other coverage, including life, health,

automobile, and disability, held for the benefit of the parties and

their child or children for whom support may be ordered.

(4) Restraining both parties from creating a nonprobate transfer

or modifying a nonprobate transfer in a manner that affects the

disposition of property subject to the transfer, without the written

consent of the other party or an order of the court.

(b) Nothing in this section restrains any of the following:

(1) Creation, modification, or revocation of a will.

(2) Revocation of a nonprobate transfer, including a revocable

trust, pursuant to the instrument, provided that notice of the change

is filed and served on the other party before the change takes

effect.

(3) Elimination of a right of survivorship to property, provided

that notice of the change is filed and served on the other party

before the change takes effect.

(4) Creation of an unfunded revocable or irrevocable trust.

(5) Execution and filing of a disclaimer pursuant to Part 8

(commencing with Section 260) of Division 2 of the Probate Code.

(c) In all actions filed on and after January 1, 1995, the summons

shall contain the following notice:

“WARNING: California law provides that, for purposes of division

of property upon dissolution of marriage or legal separation,

property acquired by the parties during marriage in joint form is

presumed to be community property. If either party to this action

should die before the jointly held community property is divided, the

language of how title is held in the deed (i.e., joint tenancy,

tenants in common, or community property) will be controlling and not

the community property presumption. You should consult your attorney

if you want the community property presumption to be written into

the recorded title to the property.”

(d) For the purposes of this section:

(1) “Nonprobate transfer” means an instrument, other than a will,

that makes a transfer of property on death, including a revocable

trust, pay on death account in a financial institution, Totten trust,

transfer on death registration of personal property, or other

instrument of a type described in Section 5000 of the Probate Code.

(2) “Nonprobate transfer” does not include a provision for the

transfer of property on death in an insurance policy or other

coverage held for the benefit of the parties and their child or

children for whom support may be ordered, to the extent that the

provision is subject to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a).

(e) The restraining order included in the summons shall include

descriptions of the notices required by paragraphs (2) and (3) of

subdivision (b).

SEC. 3. Section 3134.5 of the Family Code is amended to read:

3134.5. (a) Upon request of the district attorney, the court may

issue a protective custody warrant to secure the recovery of an

unlawfully detained or concealed child. The request by the district

attorney shall include a written declaration under penalty of perjury

that a warrant for the child is necessary in order for the district

attorney to perform the duties described in Sections 3130 and 3131.

The protective custody warrant for the child shall contain an order

that the arresting agency shall place the child in protective

custody, or return the child as directed by the court. The protective

custody warrant for the child may also contain an order to freeze

the California assets of the party alleged to be in possession of the

child. The protective custody warrant may be served in any county in

the same manner as a warrant of arrest and may be served at any time

of the day or night. For purposes of this subdivision, “assets”

means funds held in a depository institution, as defined in

subdivision (a) of Section 1420 of the Financial Code, in California

(b) Upon a declaration of the district attorney that the child has

been recovered or that the warrant is otherwise no longer required,

the court may dismiss the warrant without further court proceedings.

(c) Upon noticed motion, any order to freeze assets pursuant

to subdivision (a) may be terminated, modified, or vacated by

the court upon a finding that the release of the assets will not

jeopardize the safety or best interest of the child.

(d) If an asset freeze order is entered pursuant to subdivision

(a), and the court subsequently dismisses the warrant pursuant to

subdivision (b), notice of the dismissal shall be immediately served

on the depository institutions holding any assets pursuant to the

freeze order.

 

 

Boxer, Lautenberg, Kerry, Lugar, Inhofe Join Colleagues to Introduce Resolution Condemning International Parental Child Abduction

http://boxer.senate.gov/en/press/releases/080212b.cfm

Press Release of U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer

For Immediate Release: August 2, 2012

Contact: Washington D.C. Office (202) 224-3553

Boxer, Lautenberg, Kerry, Lugar, Inhofe Join Colleagues to Introduce Resolution Condemning International Parental Child Abduction  

 Bipartisan Resolution Calls on Countries to Do More to Prevent and Resolve Cases of Children Abducted by Parents Across International Borders

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today joined Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), John Kerry (D-MA), Richard Lugar (R-IN), James Inhofe (R-OK) and 10 colleagues to introduce a bipartisan resolution condemning the unlawful international abduction of all children. The resolution also calls on the United States and the international community to take additional steps to resolve current and future abduction cases.

Tragically, international parental child abduction continues to be a common occurrence. According to the U.S. Department of State, last year 1,367 American children were reported abducted by a parent from the United States to a foreign country.

The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is the principal tool for a parent seeking the return of a child abducted across international borders. The Convention provides a legal framework for securing the return of an abducted child so that judicial authorities can make decisions on issues of custody and the best interests of the child. However, many countries do not participate in the Hague Abduction Convention and the Convention does not apply to abductions that occur before a country joins.

The resolution calls on all countries to join and fully comply with the Hague Abduction Convention and to take other steps to prevent and resolve cases of international parental child abduction. The resolution also expresses the Sense of the Senate that the United States should “aggressively pursue the return of each child abducted by a parent from the United States to another country through all appropriate means, consistent with the Hague Abduction Convention, and through extradition, when appropriate, and facilitate access by the left-behind parent if the child is not returned.”

“These abductions are devastating for the parent who is left behind and are extremely harmful to the children involved,” Senator Boxer said. “I have met parents who have not seen or heard from their children in years, and this is simply unacceptable. The international community must be united in its condemnation of child abduction and in its commitment to resolve custody disputes by rule of law.”

“International child abduction is a tragic situation that impacts not only the parents who are left behind but also the children who have been illegally separated from them and denied any contact,” Senator Lugar said.“Bringing greater attention to this issue is important if we are to change other governments’ attitudes to these abductions.”

“Conservatives and liberals rarely agree, but on the issue of these child abductions, we see eye to eye,”Senator Inhofe said.  “Unfortunately, some countries around the world are complicit in allowing these unacceptable acts.  The heart wrenching stories I have heard from parents is not just devastating for them, but destructive for the children.  It is time for the Senate to act in a way that will help end this injustice.  This well written measure is a high priority.  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in this effort.”

“International child abductions aren’t faceless crimes, they’re real and they’re tragic,” Senator Kerry said.“Over the last two years, I’ve gotten to know Colin Bower, a Massachusetts father who had full legal custody of his two young sons and whose life was ripped apart when they were abducted and taken to Egypt. We’re still fighting and working to get his boys home and reunite them with their dad. If you know Colin, you know it’s almost a cliche to say that this is any parent’s worst nightmare and a tragic, all-too-real reminder of why the United States must condemn international abductions and work to resolve them.  The international community must stand up and do all it can to make this right.”

“We saw firsthand the devastation that international child abductions cause for parents and children when New Jersey resident David Goldman had to fight for years to be reunited with his son Sean.  We need to gain the support of countries around the world in condemning this practice and agreeing to cooperate in the return of abducted children. This resolution will help us prevent these tragedies in the future,” said Lautenberg, who was instrumental in helping the return of Sean Goldman from Brazil to his father in the United States.

In November 2009, Senator Boxer and 21 colleagues wrote to President Obama urging him to address international parental child abduction with Japanese leaders during a trip to the country. Japan remains the only G-7 industrialized nation that has yet to ratify the Hague Abduction Convention.

The resolution introduced today will help continue to raise the profile of this important issue in the United States and across the globe. Additional cosponsors of the resolution currently include Senators Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Patty Murray (D-WA). The full text of the resolution is below.

##

RESOLUTION

To express the sense of the Senate on international parental child abduction.

Whereas international parental child abduction is a tragic and common occurrence;

Whereas the abduction of a child by one parent is a heartbreaking loss for the left-behind parent and deprives the child of a relationship with 2 loving parents;

Whereas, according to the Report on Compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of the United States Department of State from April 2010, research shows that abducted children are at risk of significant short- and long-term problems, including “anxiety, eating problems, nightmares, mood swings, sleep disturbances, [and] aggressive behavior”;

Whereas, according to that report, left-behind parents may also experience substantial psychological and emotional issues, including feelings of “betrayal, sadness over the loss of their children or the end of their marriage, anger toward the other parent, anxiety, sleeplessness, and severe depression”, as well as financial strain while fighting for the return of a child;

Whereas, since 1988, the United States, which has a treaty relationship under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, done at The Hague October 25, 1980 (TIAS 11670) (referred to in this preamble as the “Hague Abduction Convention”) with 69 other countries, has agreed with its treaty partners to follow the terms of the Hague Abduction Convention;

Whereas the Hague Abduction Convention provides a legal framework for securing the prompt return of wrongfully removed or retained children to the countries of their habitual residence where competent courts can make decisions on issues of custody and the best interests of the children;

Whereas, according to the United States Department of State, the number of new cases of international child abduction from the United States increased from 579 in 2006 to 941 in 2011;

Whereas, in 2011, those 941 cases involved 1,367 children who were reported abducted from the United States by a parent and taken to a foreign country;

Whereas, in 2011, more than 660 children who were abducted from the United States and taken to a foreign country were returned to the United States;

Whereas 7 of the top 10 countries to which children from the United States were most frequently abducted in 2011 are parties to the Hague Abduction Convention, including Mexico, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Ecuador, Brazil, and Colombia;

Whereas Japan, India, and Egypt are not parties to the Hague Abduction Convention and were also among the top 10 countries to which children in the United States were most frequently abducted in 2011;

Whereas, in many countries, such as Japan and India, international parental child abduction is not considered a crime, and custody rulings made by courts in the United States are not typically recognized by courts in those countries; and

Whereas Japan is the only member of the Group of 7 major industrialized countries that has not ratified the Hague Abduction Convention: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That—

(1)    the Senate—

(A)    condemns the unlawful international abduction of all children;

(B)    urges countries identified by the United States Department of State as noncompliant or demonstrating patterns of noncompliance with the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, done at The Hague October 25, 1980 (TIAS 11670) (referred to in this resolution as the “Hague Abduction Convention”) to fulfill their commitment under international law to expeditiously implement the provisions of the Hague Abduction Convention;

(C)    calls on all countries to accede to or ratify the Hague Abduction Convention and to promptly institute measures to equitably and transparently address cases of international parental child abduction; and

(D)    calls on all countries that have not acceded to or ratified the Hague Abduction Convention to develop a mechanism for the resolution of current and future cases of international parental child abduction that occur before those countries accede to or ratify the Hague Abduction Convention in order to facilitate the prompt return of children abducted to those countries to the children’s countries of habitual residence; and

(2)    it is the sense of the Senate that the United States should—

(A)    aggressively pursue the return of each child abducted by a parent from the United States to another country through all appropriate means, consistent with the Hague Abduction Convention, and through extradition, when appropriate, and facilitate access by the left-behind parent if the child is not returned;

(B)    take all appropriate measures to ensure that a child abducted to a country that is a party to the Hague Abduction Convention is returned to the country of habitual residence of the child in compliance with the provisions of the Hague Abduction Convention;

(C)    continue to use diplomacy to encourage other countries to accede to or ratify the Hague Abduction Convention and to take the necessary steps to effectively fulfill their responsibilities under the Hague Abduction Convention;

(D)    use diplomacy to encourage countries that have not acceded to or ratified the Hague Abduction Convention to develop an institutionalized mechanism to transparently and expeditiously resolve current and future cases of international child abduction that occur before those countries accede to or ratify the Hague Abduction Convention; and

(E)    review the advisory services made available to United States citizens by the United States Department of State, the United States Department of Justice, and other United States Government agencies—

(i)    to improve the prevention of international parental child abduction from the United States; and

(ii)    to ensure that effective and timely assistance is provided to United States citizens who are parents of children abducted from the United States and taken to foreign countries.