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

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.

 

 

American children abducted to Japan listed in Congressional Record

Congressman Chris Smith has entered into the Congressional Record the names reported to him by left-behind American parents of children abducted to Japan.  Here is the link and also below is a listing of the children:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2010-11-17/pdf/CREC-2010-11-17-pt1-PgE1939-3.pdf#page=1

M.B., abducted to Japan July 21, 1995

E.B., abducted to Japan July 21, 1995

Ezra Lui, abducted to Japan November 13, 1999

Kaira Kelly Litwiller, abducted to Japan June 10, 2003

Takoda Tei Weed, abducted to Japan January 16, 2004

Tiana Kiku Weed, abducted to Japan January 16, 2004

Kento Didier Touboule, abducted to Japan October 15, 2005

Mary Victoria Lake, abducted to Japan August 2005

Kai Hachiya, abducted to Japan December 28, 2006

Masahiro Brown, abducted in Japan since April of 2007

David N. Gessleman, abducted to Japan May 13, 2007

Joshua K. Gessleman, abducted to Japan May 13, 2007

Kaya Summer Xiao-Lian Wong, abducted to Japan August 2007

Wayne Kosaku Sawyer, abducted to Japan December 15, 2008

Yuuki Patrick McCoy (Kojima), abducted in Japan August 17, 2008

Keisuke Christian Collins, abducted to Japan June 16, 2008

Sean Hillman, abducted to Japan July 5, 2008

Kana Sugiyama-Gomez, abducted to Japan April 10, 2008

Joe Yamada, abducted to Japan September 1, 2008

Grace Danielle Starr, abducted to Japan January or February 2009

Brian Senna Starr, abducted to Japan January or February 2009

‘‘Mochi’’ Atomu Imoto Morehouse, abducted to Japan June 23, 2010

Also, here is a link to the Congressional Record section with the speeches made by Congressmen Smith and Moran prior to the passage of House Resolution 1326.  Additional cases are mentioned in these statements as well:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2010-09-28/pdf/CREC-2010-09-28-pt1-PgH7043.pdf#page=2