Tragedy of children abducted from dads and taken to Japan


Parents from the US and around the world are firewalled from children held by estranged spouses – and Japanese parents face similar agonies


JANUARY 16, 2019 4:06 PM (UTC+8) 

Keisuke Christian Collins  with his father Randy Collins. The two have not met since 2008, when the boy was abducted by his  mother. Photo: Randy Collins

Keisuke Christian Collins with his father Randy Collins. The two have not met since 2008, when the boy was abducted by his mother. Photo: Randy Collins

Meanwhile, what is glaringly absent from the debate are the voices of affected children.

“In the beginning of my most recent legal battle in Japan, my son, who was 13 at the time, was asked by his attorney, ‘Do you ever think about your father?’” Morehouse said. “As tears rolled down his face he replied, ‘Sometimes I dream of him at night’.”

Leave a Comment »

Please sign new White House petition

January 23, 2013

Bring back the 374 American children who have been kidnapped to Japan!
Over 374 American children have been kidnapped to Japan. Most of these children were too young or too scared to have a voice and contact their American parent. My knowledge comes from, my Son and, the other Parents of Kidnapped Children (PKC) We will not stop until we get our government’s help to bring our children home.

Leave a Comment »

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

August 24, 2012

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 site with contact information for the Senate offices, and we have also republished it below for your immediate reference.

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

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.



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

First Last Name State First Last e-mail address Phone            (202 Area Code) S. Res. 543                      Co-sponsor Status
Mark Begich AK David Ramseur 224-3004
Lisa Murkowski AK Nathan Bergerbest 224-6665
Richard Shelby AL Kevin Kane 224-5744
John Boozman AR Toni-Marie Higgins 224-4843
Mark Pryor AR Sarah Holland 224-2353
Jon Kyl AZ Tim Morrison 224-4521
John McCain AZ Elizabeth Lopez 224-2235
Barbara Boxer CA Ariana Reks 224-3553 Sponsor
Diane Feinstein CA Richard Harper 224-3841 Co-sponsor
Michael Bennet CO Sergio Gonzales 224-5852
Mark Udall CO Casey Howard 224-5941
Richard Blumenthal CT Ethan Saxon 224-2823
Joe Lieberman CT ? ? ? 224-4041
Thomas Carper DE Olivia Hayden 224-2441
Christopher Coons DE Halie Soifer 224-5042
Bill Nelson FL Marin Stein 224-5274
Marco Rubio FL Victor Cervino 224-3041 Co-sponsor
Saxby Chambliss GA Brandon Bell 224-3521
Johnny Isakson GA Chris Sullivan 224-3643
Daniel Akaka HI Nick Ikeda 224-6361
Daniel Inouye HI Mary Yoshioka 224-3934
Chuck Grassley IA Kurt Kovarik 224-3744
Tom Harkin IA Rosemary Gutierrez 224-3254
Mike Crapo ID Ken Flanz 224-6142
James Risch ID Chris Socha 224-2752
Richard Durbin IL Ms. Erum Ibrahim 224-2152
Mark Kirk IL Gretchen Blum 224-2854 Co-sponsor
Daniel Coats IN Terry Snell 224-5623
Richard Lugar* IN Keith Luse 224-4814 Co-sponsor
Jerry Moran KS Jason Wiens 224-6521
Pat Roberts KS Theda Owens 224-4774
Mitch McConnell KY Reb Brownell 224-2541
Rand Paul KY Brandon Brooker 224-4343
Mary Landrieu LA Libby Whitbeck 224-5824 Co-sponsor
David Vitter LA Josh Hodges 224-4623
Scott Brown MA William Wright 224-4543
John Kerry** MA Jeremy D’Aliosio jeremy_d’ 224-2742 Co-sponsor
Benjamin Cardin MD Katharine Beamer 224-4524 Co-sponsor
Barbara Mikulski MD Erin Neill 224-4654 Co-sponsor
Susan Collins ME Peter Halvorsen 224-2523
Olympia Snowe ME Don Green 224-5344
Carl Levin MI Michael Kuiken 224-6221
Debbie Stabenow MI Doug Messana 224-4822
Al Franken MN Jeff Lomonaco 224-5641
Amy Klobuchar MN Marian Grove 224-3244
Roy Blunt MO Brian Diffell 224-5721
Claire McCaskill MO Jason Rauch 224-6154
Thad Cochran MS Will Todd 224-5054
Roger Wicker MS Sarah Drake 224-6253
Max Baucus MT Brittany Beaulieu 224-2651
Jon Tester MT Tony McClain 224-2644
Richard Burr NC Cynthia Ramos 224-3154
Kay Hagan NC Rikkia Ramsey 224-6342
Kent Conrad ND Nathaniel Luvtosky 224-2043
John Hoeven ND Josh Carter 224-2551
Mike Johanns NE Erin Jeffery 224-4224
Ben Nelson NE Ryan Ehly 224-6551
Kelly Ayotte NH Brad Bowman 224-3324
Jeanne Shaheen NH Joel Colony 224-2841
Frank Lautenberg NJ Allison Peters 224-3224 Co-sponsor
Robert Menendez NJ Ryan Sellinger 224-4744
Jeff Bingaman NM Jeffry Phan 224-5521
Tom Udall NM Matthew Padilla 224-6621
Dean Heller NV Josh Finestone 224-6244
Harry Reid NV Jessica Lewis 224-3542
Kirsten Gillibrand NY Elena Broitman 224-4451 Co-sponsor
Chuck Schumer NY Erin Vaughn 224-6542
Sherrod Brown OH Doug Babcock 224-2315
Rob Portman OH Brent Bombach 224-3353
Tom Coburn OK Jeremy Hayes 224-5754
James Inhofe OK Joel Starr 224-4721 Co-sponsor
Jeff Merkley OR Will White 224-3753 Co-sponsor
Ron Wyden OR Isaiah Akin 224-5244
Robert Casey PA Damian Murphy 224-6324
Patrick Toomey PA Dan Adelstein 224-4254
Jack Reed RI Carolyn Chuhta 224-4642
Sheldon Whitehouse RI Ben Weiner 224-2921
Jim DeMint SC Robert Moore 224-6121
Lindsey Graham SC Matt Rimkunas 224-5972
Tim Johnson SD Karen Kunze 224-5842
John Thune SD Jason VanBeek 224-2321
Lamar Alexander TN Erin Reif 224-4944
Bob Corker TN Stacie Oliver 224-3344
John Cornyn TX E. Grace Smitham 224-2934
Kay Bailey Hutchison TX Coalter Baker 224-5922
Orrin Hatch UT William Castle 224-5251
Mike Lee UT Miriam Harmer 224-5444
Mark Warner VA Manica Noziglia 224-2023
Jim Webb VA Marta McLellanRoss 224-4024
Patrick Leahy VT Tim Rieser 224-4242 Co-sponsor
Bernard Sanders VT Huck Gutman 224-5141
Maria Cantwell WA Spencer Launer 224-3441
Patty Murray WA Lauren Renee Overman 224-4607 Co-sponsor
Ron Johnson WI Alan Elias 224-5323
Herb Kohl WI Harry Stein 224-5653
Joe Manchin WV Mr. Lee Garton 224-3954
John Rockefeller WV Nate Adler 224-6472
John Barrasso WY Amber Bland 224-6441
Michael Enzi WY Wendy Gnehm 224-3424


Leave a Comment »

More on Keisuke’s Law

August 23, 2012

NBC interview with Randy Collins:!/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.


Leave a Comment »

Passage of Keisuke’s Law being noted in Japanese media

August 21, 2012

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:

Leave a Comment »

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

August 14, 2012

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:





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.


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.


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


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


(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.

Leave a Comment »

Article about Patrick McPike & other cases

July 11, 2012


Parents urge Japan to return abducted children

BY  · JULY 10, 2012 · NO COMMENTS

Jeffrey and Mochi

Imagine getting a phone call stating that your children have been kidnapped. Your spouse has taken your kids to Japan, using the country’s laws to maintain custody. Every day becomes an exhausting task of contacting government officials to help, but little is accomplished.

This scenario is very real to Patrick McPike and the parents of nearly 400 abducted U.S. children living in Japan. Including Japanese children, an estimated 10,000 have been abducted by parents within Japan.

Japan has never returned any of them.

McPike traveled with his family to Japan to complete an assignment for his company. His marriage strained and his wife did the unthinkable.

“It seemed like a good opportunity to provide my wife’s family with an opportunity to spend some time with their grandchildren while they were still young,” McPike said. “When my assignment was up and it was time to come home, my wife abducted the children.”

McPike’s wife cut him off from communication with his two sons, Kai and Koh. The children became victims of Japanese law, which treats child abduction as a custody dispute rather than a felony crime. His wife is living in Japan, but could not be reached or found for comment.

Japan’s view of child abduction is different from the rest of the world. They are not a member of The Hague Convention – a treaty designed to return internationally abducted children to their home nations – and their courts favor one parent having sole custody. In 90 percent of cases, the rights go to the mother.

Japan is revising laws to open the possibility ratifying The Hague, but these changes may not be a total acceptance of The Hague in its current form.

“If we look at the domestic laws submitted by the government in order to execute the Convention, changes have been made with current Japanese public opinion and family court practices in mind, and it is questionable whether the intent of the Hague Convention has been incorporated,” said Takao Tanase, a professor who specializes in Japanese law.

During a U.S. Department of State briefing on U.S. child abductions to Japan, Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell spoke about persuading Japan to join The Hague.

“The President also very strongly affirmed the Japanese decision to enter into The Hague Convention,” Campbell said. “He asked that these steps be taken clearly and that the necessary implementing legislation would be addressed.

“This is a human tragedy, that unless you get to experience and get to know these brave parents, it’s just impossible to imagine,” Campbell said.

Getting Japan to join The Hague would be helpful, but McPike says it will not be enough, by itself, to bring back all the missing children.

“The Hague is not enforceable,” McPike said. “The decision to comply with a Hague return is determined by the courts of the abducting country. To solve the problem requires reform of the Japanese system.  They need to hold courts and judges responsible for following the law.  They need to enforce kidnapping laws consistently and they need to provide for joint-custody.”

There have also been concerns about the lack of action from the U.S. per policy, the U.S. Department of State has not formally requested from Japan the return of any abducted U.S. children.

Kai and Koh together laughing in happier times. (Courtesy photo.)

Susan Jacobs, a special adviser for children’s issues for the U.S. Department of State, said that individual cases are raised with the permission of parents and the parents are updated on these discussions. However, most parents say they have not been told of their personal cases being discussed with Japanese government officials.

Ironically, Japan refuses to return U.S. children but they want their own citizens who are abducted to be returned. From 1978-1981, about 16 Japanese teenagers were abducted by North Korea. Five of those children were returned and about six have died. The others are still missing. Japan has come to the U.S. and the U.N. asking for help to get North Korea to return these children.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama have met with Japanese families and assured they would provide help. Yet they have not met with any U.S. parents about their children being abducted to Japan, giving the appearance that they are more concerned with helping Japan.

Parents also question efforts by the U.S. Department of State because of the Mary Lake case.

In 2005, William Lake’s daughter was abducted by his ex-wife and taken to Japan. No one in the Lake family was Japanese, but William’s ex-wife knew of Japan’s custody laws.

On August 24, 2011, Mary Lake went to the U.S. Consulate in Japan and spoke with an official who told her to return home to her abductor since she did not have the money for a plane ticket to the states. Pressure was put on the U.S. Consulate and they aided Mary Lake’s effort to go home to her father the second time.

The return of Mary Lake gave parents of abducted children a small glimmer of hope for their own cases. For McPike and others like Jeffrey Morehouse and Randy Collins, getting their children back has become a daily job.

Morehouse and Collins serve as regional directors for Bring Abducted Children Home (BACHome), an organization established in 2010 to raise awareness of the missing U.S. citizen children kidnapped to in Japan.

Both men testified before the California State Senate Judiciary Committee for Senate Bill 1206 – Child Abduction Prevention. This is just one of many hearings they have attended to gather support.

During his testimony, Morehouse explained that he dropped his son Mochi off with his ex-wife for a parental visit in 2010. His ex-wife had threatened to kidnap Mochi before but the passport policy stated “when both parents have custody of the child, and the child is taken out of the country by one of the parents without consent of the other parent, it is punishable by criminal law.”

The Portland consulate violated the policy and provided his ex-wife with the passport for Mochi. Six days later he received a phone call from the police telling him his wife and child were missing. His wife kidnapped their son to Japan.

“In that moment, my life was shattered,” Morehouse said. “My days became consumed with dealing with local law enforcement, the U.S. Department of State, Japanese consular officials and anything I could think of to find my little boy.

“Every morning I wake up twice. The first time, I rush out of bed and prepare to get him ready for school. I can hear his voice in my head and my heart skips a beat. And then I really wake up and realize he’s still missing. The ongoing nightmare continues. The last time I held his hand, the last time I heard his voice was on Father’s Day 2010 and I’m still spending every day trying to locate my son.”

Morehouse, Collins and the other members of BacHome continue to exhaust their resources to locate their children.

They recently wrote a letter in advance of Clinton’s July 8 trip to Japan. Urging officials to help return their children, it was addressed to the Prime Minister to the Los Angeles consulate, four other Japanese consulates, members of the media, the Department of State, White House Office staff, all U.S. Senate offices, and members of the House of Representatives.

During Clinton’s visit about 40 parents of abducted children in Japan participated in a rally attempting to secure her help in pressuring Japan to address the issue of child custody.

Parents will continue to fight and hope that those in charge take notice and urge Japan to return their children.

“Imagine that tomorrow your child is going to be abducted,” Collins said. “What would you do today to prevent that from happening tomorrow?”

“I haven’t seen or heard from my son in almost four years. I don’t know what he’s thinking. But I did everything my government told me I was supposed to do to protect my son. I did everything that the courts told me to do to protect my son. Nobody protected my son.”

Leave a Comment »

California Considering New International Child Abduction Prevention Legislation

February 29, 2012

Thanks to the efforts of left-behind parent Randy Collins of California, whose son, Keisuke, was abducted to Japan in 2008, new legislation (SB1206) is being introduced in the California State Senate to prevent international child abduction.  It is Randy’s hope that this legislation, which will be known as “Keisuke’s Law,” will be a blueprint for similar legislation in other states and that it eventually will be in place nationwide to help prevent international child abductions.
Here is a link to the proposed legislation:
Randy’s website:

Leave a Comment »

ABC News to provide major coverage of Japanese child abduction issue

February 15, 2011

ABC conducted a group interview of over a dozen U.S. parents whose children have been abducted to Japan and will be covering this on their “World News” programs on Tuesday, February 15 and Wednesday, Feburary 16, and also on ABC Nightline on February 15.

A related video, photos, and other information is available at the following link:

Leave a Comment »

NCMEC posters of children believed to have been abducted to Japan

October 21, 2009

Below are the public posters for 9 cases obtained by Children’s Rights Council of Japan from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) of 10 U.S. children believed to have been abducted to Japan.

This list just represents the tip of the iceberg as the vast majority of the cases involving Japan are not being publicized in the NCMEC poster campaign, either because the left-behind parent has not reported their case to NCMEC, or they have reported the case but have not gone public with it.

Diona Peterson

Elias Martinez

Hana Scordato

Hiroki Hagisaka

Keisuke Collins

Marina Kaneda

Melissa Braden

Sean Hillman

Takoda and Tiana Weed

Leave a Comment »