Emily Rose Hindle

I'm Asking for Your Help With Emily in Florida

2011-11-16T12:31:00.001Z

Hi Guys,

I'm trying to get the court in Florida to give hearing time on motions regarding Emily who was abducted from the UK in 2003 by her mom. I filed motions with the court back in February of this year and the FL judge is sitting on his hands.

Meanwhile almost a year has elapsed since the appeals' court ruled on the issues and Emily and I have not seen each other in two and a half years - the last time being the only time in over 6 years.

I am asking you to write to the Chief Judge in Volusia County, Fl - be polite, but be frank about what you think of this and many of you know what has been going on for the last 9 years. His address is:

Chief Judge Parsons

Volusia County Courthouse

101 N. Alabama Ave.,

DeLand FL 32724

Cite the case number as well: 2003 - 12692 - FMDL

The presiding judge (who is sitting on his hands) is Judge Matthew Foxman.

I would like you to state your own opinion as to what has been happening with Emily down in Florida and I would like you to do this by writing to Chief Judge Parsons (snail mail not email) and sending me a copy too. My address is:

Karl Hindle
8654 Scottingham Drive
RICHMOND VA 23236

I will be filing all the letters together as a motion with Judge Foxman so they get into the court record.

To broadly summarize:

Emily was abducted from the UK by her mother in 2003 with the assistance of the US Department of State and US Embassy London (police report filed by mother in Wisconsin post-abduction is attached as "WI Report";

Emily was placed up for an unlawful adoption/sale involving a convicted pedophile in 2003 (deposition of pedophile, Leslie Merriam is here ; sex offenders registration is here)

Emily has been neglected by both her mom and the FL court in respect of her blindness in her right eye - the mom denied anything was wrong with her sight and the court refused to look at any evidence, including that of 9 British and American doctors who recommended medical treatment - they allowed Emily to go blind (British hospital letter is here ; US doctor's letter is here);

In 2004 while litigating to protect Emily, I was arrested on allegations of abuse by the mother and deported after 5 weeks incarceration in Bradenton Immigration detention Center, Tampa - this was on the orders of State Department official, Barbara Greig of OCI based on a legion of false complaints of abuse, domestic violence and sexual abuse of my children in England - all found to be false by courts on both sides of the Atlantic - (US Immigration arrest report is here - note 2nd paragraph in narrative at bottom of page)

In 2005 I managed to get a visa to return to the US to continue litigation - Emily was then abducted by her mom again, this time out of Florida and was classified as Missing and Endangered (by this time she was also becoming completely blinded in her affected eye) - (Missing and Endangered poster is here)

At this time I was also under a permanent ban from coming to the US to look for Emily or to continue litigation - the US Department of State had barred me from travel because I was an abuser based on the mother's claims - I sued the US Department of State and got a visa in 2006 when Emily had been located in Kansas & Missouri;

January 2006 - depositions taken of 2 witnesses in KS who testified to the involvement of Barbara Greig of OCI, US Department of State's involvement in hiding and concealing Emily in the US - refer to depositions of Terri Jacobsen & Robert Ozier below and the attached deposition extracts for both) [NOTE: I have been unable to upload the depositions extracts - email me at karl4work@gmail.com if you want them]

After being reunited with Emily in January 2006, 2 weeks later her mother accused me raping Emily (then aged 3) in a bathroom at MacDonalds - I went into hiding in FL as I was threatened several times, including death threats - the police and authorities investigated fully and found no sexual abuse or any form of abuse had occurred and the mother was filing false complaints and coaching Emily in the making of allegations - the mother's handwritten police complaint is here -

May 2006 - hearing for medical treatment for Emily and contempt for filing sex abuse complaint - Judge Doyle refuses to allow us to submit the mother's handwritten complaint of sexual abuse of Emily into evidence - mother's attorney denies any report being made by her client (despite the report being in her possession). Most disturbingly, Judge Doyle refuses to follow the recommendations of an Independent Medical Examiner, Dr Cordero regarding the need to treat Emily's eye - I explain Emily is going blind in her eye, Doyle has been thrown out of court and continues to ignore the matter;

No more contact with Emily and continued delays with getting the court to rule - in all of this time, the Florida court has not ruled on any of the issues (save for dismissing claims of domestic violence) - we are now at May 2008 - 5 years after Emily's initial abduction and Emily is by now permanently blinded in her right eye;

May 2008 - final trial - I have been denied visas again to come to the US (on the action of Barbara Greig et al at OCI because I am an "abuser) - by now I have been through 6 prosecutions/investigations for abuse of one form or another and won all of them or had a finding of false allegations against the mother (but no action from the FL court to control her conduct) - Judge Doyle hears the case and dismisses jurisdictional argument simply:

"In this County we are provincials. We don't do the Hague Convention."

October 2008 - Judge Doyle rules that on the mother's recanting of all of her allegations and undertaking not to interfere in visitation in future, she gets custody of Emily and I get visitation plus $29,000 in back child support to be paid by me for my daughter's abduction;

November 2008 - I appeal and try to see Emily with my visitation order - I fail to see her for Thanksgiving, Christmas, in January and again in February 2009 until I file for contempt, the mother runs back to the police complaining of harassment and stalking;

March 2009 Spring Break - I finally get to see Emily after more than 3 years - it is wonderful but Patsy and I are both threatened by mom's boyfriend (now husband) a Florida policeman while 2 other police officers looked on;

September 2009 - I am in the UK and find I am being prosecuted for stalking the mom and her husband in Panama City FL - when I was not in the state and not in the country - a further warrant for my arrest is issued and I cannot return to the US until it is dealt with (it was all dismissed with prejudice in January 2010) - the FL court continues to do nothing and there is no contact with Emily, not least because I am scared stiff something will happen to Patsy and I - the complaint and court record is here - filed by mom's husband, a FL policeman who also has a record for amongst other things, domestic violence and stealing cars;

January 2010 - Judge Doyle forced to take retirement for bad behavior (here is a link to a FL site following Doyle)

November 2010 - Appellate process ends - I fail to get heard at the US Supreme Court - the lower appellate courts throw out the child support order but refuse to look at the medical neglect of little Emily which has left here to go blind - they also retain Emily in Florida on the basis that as no other state in the US has jurisdiction, Florida can keep jurisdiction (ignoring any return back to her home state of England).

March 2011 - I file for change in residency of Emily based on continued violations of final court order and other matters - to date the court in Florida ignores me.

Emily was abducted from the UK to the US - that much is crystal clear - and despite spending almost half a million dollars on litigating, Emily has seen less of her father than the 5 weeks I spent in a stinking jail for bad behavior and conduct of the mother and Barbara Greig at OCI (subsequently "disciplined" for her behavior and then promoted).

Emily has gone BLIND in an eye.

Emily was put up for sale to a pedophile and his family.

Emily has seen her Daddy once in just over 6 years.

According to the Floridian judge in Emily's case, "In this County we are provincials. We don't do the Hague Convention!" - I think if you're a left-behind parent relying on the Hague Convention to return your child to America you ought to have something to say about THAT!

The Floridian courts believe it is in her best interests to remain with the parent who has put her through all of this and has not complied with any orders of any court in the US or UK.

I don't believe the FL court and authorities have been doing their job and are hiding behind technicalities and their offices while a child, my little girl Emily has been put through this monstrous mess.

I pay child support - but my checks are returned by the FL State Disbursement Unit - I have started sending a blank check each month to Judge Foxman, the last one was returned last week.

I am begging you to write a brief letter to Chief Judge Parsons to tell him what you think of all of this and to send me a copy as well so I can get it all on the record.

Many thanks for your help - sincerely guys, many of you have known me for years and what has been going on but I am pretty much finished as far as my faith in fairness and justice in the Floridian courts - I need your help on this and I truly am grateful for your support.

Best,

Karl

DEPOSITIONS REFERENCES

Deposition of Terri Jacobsen of Kansas - attached

p18 line 10 et seq
p20 line 15 et seq: Greig advisesd TJ no laws were beig broken with SKF staying in KS
p21 line 12 et seq
p23 line 1 - p25 line 17 : communications with Barbara Greig at State
p37 line 16 - p35 line 9 : Greig advised TJ nothing wrong with the situation, SKF is being honest with her allegations and I am not to be trusted
p41 line 21 - p42 line 10 et seq

Deposition of Robert Ozier of Kansas - attached

p.9 line 10 - p.10 (note line 11) - assistance of BG to keep KH out of the US
p16 line 24 - p17 line 17 - assistance from BG for change of identity for SKF and Emily
p25 line 5 - p26 line 5 - State Department generally
p26 line 17 - line 25 - Lees Summit MO police station visit with Emily
p29 line 3 - line 11
p33 line 18 - line 5 page 34 State Department sending correspondence to SKF while in KS (NB Ozier testifies it could be State Dept or SKF's lawyers sending correspondence - SKF did not have a lawyer at this time)

Martin Boyle in Brazil: Carnival of Despair

2011-04-22T14:51:00.003+01:00

Martin Boyle was headline news in the UK in 2008: his daughter, Rebeca, was abducted 11 years before. While in Brazil trying to find Rebeca, he was arrested and imprisoned on trumped up, child support charges after uncovering the fraudulent adoption of his daughter there.

Earlier this year, Martin returned to Brazil in a further effort to reunite with his now adult daughter and to deal with the kidnappers in the Brazilian legal system.

This makes compelling reading for those who are leafing through David Goldman's new book on recovering Sean, who was held for 5 years in Brazil.

Unlike David and Sean, for Rebeca and Martin there is no happy ending...

Carnival of Despair: The Continuing Search for Rebeca

by Martin Boyle

I flew to Brazil on 15th February this year for the long-awaited hearing over the reversal of the fraudulent adoption of my daughter, Rebeca, who was kidnapped 16 years ago by her mother. I and my Brazilian lawyer, Alexandre, had been building up to this since I was arrested and imprisoned on trumped up child support charges in Brazil in July 2008, when I went there in a desperate attempt to locate my daughter after years of non-cooperation from her mother.

I had also hoped that by campaigning relentlessly on the Internet through social networking sites and sites for left-behind parents and by trying to lobby parliamentarians and others, as well as by pleading with my ex-wife’s family, I could effect some kind of change of heart and reach a settlement that would allow me to see and develop a relationship with the daughter I had not seen for 16 years. All of this campaigning created a lot of publicity for my case, but it did nothing to soften my ex-wife’s stance or persuade the Brazilian and UK authorities to do the right thing.

Government Support Amounts to Nothing

My most recent attempt to garner support through the European Parliament was unsuccessful – a sad sign of how seriously our government and politicians truly take the issue of international child abduction. On one occasion in Strasbourg, the image-conscious MEP, Michéle Striffler, who had previously corresponded with me about child abduction in Brazil, waved me imperiously out of her office with barely-concealed contempt and told one of her minions to deal with me. I did not put this down to her being French. My local MP, Julian Brazier, had done the same thing when I visited his office in Kent in 2009, only he didn’t have a lackey to deal with me. The dismissive impatience and unconcealed irritation was the same, but instead of a waft of Dior and haute-couture leather, I caught the heady odour of cow manure and grass from his green corduroys and wellies – the mark of a true gentleman farmer who had far more important things to worry about than a case of child abduction in a far-away country of which he knew little.

The jovial Keith Taylor, a UK Green Party MEP, did offer support and sympathy, as did Ana Maria Gomes, of the Portuguese Socialists, but I really needed some big guns. I had seen the hero of the 1968 Paris student barricades, Danny ‘the Red’ Cohn-Bendit, talking in the parliamentary chamber earlier on but he seemed to have taken up the cause of the North-Atlantic horse mackerel, so I guessed that he’d be a non-starter. More blind alleys included the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Prime Minister’s petitions page, the Brazilian Central Authority and so on.

Maintaining My Focus on Rebeca & The Brazilian Court

I had worked on this every day since I last left Brazil in 2008, had spent a small fortune that could have gone into Rebeca’s bank account and had generated thousands upon thousands of pages of emails and documents.

But I still had not even spoken to or located my ex-wife or daughter.

All the time, and in parallel, Alexandre had beaten a determined path through the Brazilian judicial system. Finally, my day in court was going to come and my ex and her co-abductor were going to be hauled before me and a judge to answer for what they had done.

Alexandre had assured me that there would be no problems when I arrived at the airport since I had given the release papers to the girl at passport control on the way out of Brazil in 2008. On arrival at São Paulo international airport, though, I was immediately detained and taken to the Federal Police station. My name was still on the national police computer, despite their having told me when I left in 2008 that it would be taken off.

Luckily, Alexandre was at the airport to meet me and went up to the police station to explain the situation. He found me sitting in exactly the same seat I had sat in three years before with my guts churning and the same delegado and police officers there. I was even charging my mobile phone in exactly the same socket so that I could send a round robin text out – ‘arrested in Brazil – tell the press – don’t pay a penny!’

If he had not been there, I was in no doubt that my experience would have been exactly the same as last time – prison. The delegado shook my hand, and Alexandre and I left the airport and drove into São Paulo, where he dropped me at the house of my friends, Ana Luiza and Francisco, who had kindly offered to put me up while I was there. They, along with another couple of friends, knew the story well and had agreed to be my witnesses at the hearing that was scheduled for 22nd February.

I spent the days leading up to the hearing discussing the case with Alexandre and contacting friends and gathering information. Alexandre suggested that, in order to avoid any more problems with the Federal Police, he should put in an official request to have my name removed from the police computer. In addition, he told me that my ex-wife, Mara Silvia Oliveira Rezende, and Rebeca’s stepfather, José Augusto Dos Santos Sá, a technician with Petrobras in São José dos Campos, had been regularly attempting to renew the spurious claim for child support against me that had landed me in prison in the first place and that, in order for him to follow this for the next year, I should need to pay the equivalent of £1000GBP.

In the meantime, he gave me a letter explaining the situation to present to the police in case I was stopped at any time. As far as the court hearing was concerned, Alexandre had gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that Mara, José Augusto and Rebeca would actually be in court. He had inserted a clause in the papers saying that if they did not turn up, the case would automatically go against them. However, just before the actual hearing, he told me that they had not actually been officially summonsed because of a series of errors by the court clerks and officials. He was confident that the papers had been served, but that Mara and José Augusto had not signed that they had received them because they had simply juggled addresses and were not at the address that they had provided to the court. The result, he said, was that they would probably turn up anyway because they had lodged a defence and it would not be in their interests not to turn up, but that they probably would find an excuse not to bring Rebeca.

That is what I thought too.

On the day of the hearing, Alexandre took me and one of my witnesses to São José dos Campos, while Ana Luiza and Francisco followed in their car with another witness. We arrived at the vara de infancia - the family court - on what was a blisteringly hot afternoon and hung around outside trying to keep in the shade. There was no air conditioning in the public part of the court building, the electric fans were broken and the rickety brown patent leather seats had left me itching and sweating. My stomach was churning and I was dripping with sweat. I had been aching for years for the chance to finally get these kidnappers into court, but I also wanted all of this to be over.

The Hearing: Face-to-Face with Rebeca's Kidnappers

The hearing was scheduled for 3.40pm of 22nd February and at 3.30pm Mara and Rebeca´s stepfather walked up to the court building – he with his arm around her. I recognized Mara straight away, even though it had been 16 years since I had seen her in the flesh; I was appalled at the extent to which she appeared to have deteriorated physically and emotionally. This was also the first time I had ever seen the man who had never been man enough to approach me or identify himself to me and to tell me that he wanted to be my daughter’s father and whose name, if they had had their way, I would never have found out in the first place. He was slight, dark and goateed and Mara seemed to dwarf him both physically and psychologically. They had three witnesses with them who looked overwhelmed and intimidated. They turned out to be domestic cleaners who had worked for Mara over the years. I turned to Alexandre and my witnesses and said “that’s them” as they ignored us and walked into the court building. Rebeca was not with them, but the feeling in my stomach switched from anxiety to anticipation. There was a chance.

We followed them upstairs a few minutes later and waited in the oppressive humidity of the public waiting room while the court clerk sorted out names and details. Rebeca’s stepfather, José Augusto, in an attempt to prolong the ongoing narrative of fear and secrecy that Mara had started off and kept returning to, made a point of asking the clerk if they could keep their current address secret. I bridled internally, but decided not to challenge him and just smiled.

The judge called Mara, José Augusto, me and the two lawyers into the courtroom and, after a brief preamble and a few formalities, started questioning me. “Mr Martin Boyle, do you speak the Portuguese language?” he asked in Portuguese. “Yes,” I said, “although it’s a bit rusty,” I replied. That seemed to satisfy him and he went on to ask me what I hoped to gain from the process I had initiated. He kept reiterating that any victory I might have would be merely pyrrhic. I was a bit overwhelmed and suddenly tongue tied and confused that something, for which I had been preparing for years, and which should have appeared so easy to explain just stuck in my throat. Everything that I had written and thought over the years was suddenly gone as I bowed my head and clasped my hands between my knees. Composing myself, I said that it was very hard for me to express how I felt because the whole experience had been so traumatic, that I couldn’t even find the words in English, but that I loved my daughter and that I had been living a nightmare trying to find her.

I told him that I was constantly worried about Rebeca and just wanted to be able to speak to her and explain the situation and have a relationship with her. I couldn’t understand why I was being asked to justify myself in this way, in what should have been a clear case of child abduction and fraud. The judge leafed through the case file in front of him.

It was this same judge who had authorised the fraudulent adoption in the first place although, to give him his due, he did not know at the time that Mara and José Augusto were committing fraud and perjury. It was going to be hard for him to go back on his previous decision and annul the adoption.

“Mr Martin Boyle,” he said, “you know that, even if you win this case, Rebeca can go down to any public records office and change her name as an adult, since she is now 18. It has been many years now, and she has a new family.”

Ignoring the blatant logical fallacy, I tried to explain as diplomatically as I could that time did not turn something unjust into something just, that there was also natural law and the fact that Rebeca wasn’t even there to put her side of the story - independent of her mother and stepfather - and that I had never had a chance to speak to Rebeca spoke volumes.

This, in fact, was what Mara and José Augusto had planned all along – to drag things out through subterfuge, lies and non-cooperation until Rebeca had reached the age of 18 and it could be turned into a done deal – that the alienation would be complete. It was clear that, since she was not there to hear my side of the story and had not been told that I was there, she would simply follow her mother’s orders.

As I talked I could see Mara out of the corner of my eye. She looked drained and was crying in a way that caused the judge eventually to tell her to leave the room while I continued with my evidence. I told the judge about the efforts I had made to find Rebeca – the efforts made by the consulate, the Brazilian authorities, Interpol, social services – and my imprisonment when I had come over to Brazil in 2008.

The judge pursed his lips and nodded sympathetically.

He excused me from the room and called Mara back in to give her evidence with my lawyer present. Apparently, when he asked her about my imprisonment and whether it was true that she had danced for joy and said I would never see Rebeca again, she curled her lip at him and snorted. He asked her again what she had done when she found out I was in prison in Brazil and she retorted rudely, “Huh, I don’t know. Ask my mother!” The judge then stared at her sternly for a full minute and asked her again. She reiterated her claim that I had never taken any interest in Rebeca, that I had abandoned the family and that I had disappeared without a trace. By all accounts, Mara did not do herself any favours during her evidence.

The Kidnappers are Doing This to Protect Me?

When she came out of the courtroom after her evidence, Mara approached me and offered me her hand, as if to shake it. She started off cooperatively and I hoped that we might reach some kind of agreement but, as the conversation progressed, she said the following a) she and Rebeca’s stepfather had become evangelical Christians and that they had never said anything against me to Rebeca, b) that I should thank José Augusto for having raised Rebeca c) that Rebeca had been on the point of going to the UK to visit her cousins and that they were trying to get the money together for this and that d) Rebeca was scared to go out alone in case she was kidnapped and that she did not want to come to court because she was scared.

The degree of manipulation and deceit shook me but, on reflection, I was not surprised. I did not believe that Rebeca had ever been told that I was looking for her. Mara insisted on speaking in English, even though I speak fluent Portuguese and José Augusto does not speak English. When I asked Mara why she was doing this, she said slowly and gravely as if talking to a five year old child, “it’s to protect you, Martin. We are in a court here.”

As the discussion continued, she became more and more controlling and animated, holding her hand up to stop José Augusto from speaking, jabbing her finger at me and gritting her teeth, her mouth a tiny taut triangle of hate and venom. Her voice was slow and strange – almost creepy – and her eyes were empty. Mara did all the talking and her partner just nodded his head. Alexandre had warned me not to engage with José Augusto, but I was itching to pull him to one side to explain to him how much he’d been taken in by this woman and I had to control myself.

After the witnesses had given their evidence, two of my witnesses said to Mara that all I wanted was to see Rebeca. She snapped that Rebeca did not want to see me. Rebeca was not there to speak for herself. They left abruptly, with Mara making threats that I would never see Rebeca ‘this way’. Then they were gone and I was left in the court grounds with Alexandre and my witnesses. The judge had asked at the end of the hearing when I had to leave Brazil, and then said that his written judgement would be out in between 30 and 50 days.

Later in the week, Alexandre attempted mediation through Mara’s lawyer – a new one hired at the last minute.

He said that Rebeca did not want to see me.

Looking Up Old Faces

I had gone to Brazil more in hope than expectation in the first place – I knew in my heart that Mara would do everything in her power to stop Rebeca from seeing me, so I went to São José Dos Campos again and visited the two addresses that I had for Mara and José Augusto. The gate guard at the most recent address, Rua José Augusto Dos Santos (coincidentally, the same as the stepfather’s name), 86, said that they had left in 2009 and returned very rarely to collect mail. I told him who I was and he was sympathetic and told me quite a lot about Rebeca and the ‘family’- that she was shy and withdrawn and had not had much schooling, that she looked very much like me, that the ‘family’ fought a lot with the neighbours and that they left her alone at home much of the time. He seemed to know quite a lot about them.

Later on, I visited a man who had been a witness at my wedding in 1988. At one time, he had been my ex-father-in-law, Milton’s, best friend, but said that they had not spoken for many years. He had seen Rebeca when she was small and she seemed very bright and clever – he was shocked by what I told him about the news I had received about her.

I then went to see Mara’s former therapist. She told me that Mara was clearly very sick – that she was possibly psychotic and paranoid, that she hadn’t spoken to her since 2008, when Mara had called her out of the blue to talk about random issues and said that I had disappeared without a trace when she asked her about me. I put her straight on the story – I had been sitting in a prison cell in Brazil when this phone call had taken place. The therapist was unwilling to believe that this kind of thing could happen in the Brazilian legal system – that patrio poder – or father’s rights – could not be removed like this, that no judge would authorise an adoption when the father was still alive and that I must have been badly counselled. I told her that it would never have happened if I had been living in Brazil, had had a parent who was a lawyer and an endless supply of money with which to fund interminable legal challenges and access requests.

After that, I contacted the priest who married us in 1988. He is also a psychologist and has known Mara since she was a child. He had not spoken to her for many years, but said that he would try to find a way to speak to Mara’s parents. We joked that, since Mara was now a born-again Christian, it was unlikely that she would be happy about an intervention from a Catholic priest.

I also emailed Milton, Mara’s father, on the off chance, not really expecting a response, and spoke on the phone to Mara’s 94 year-old grandmother. She said that Mara had disappeared many years ago and that nobody in the family had seen her since – that she was ‘crazy’. That evening, I got an email from Milton, asking me to call him. I and the people I was staying with were amazed and I resisted the urge to call him immediately, preferring to sleep on it. The next morning, I called him and we talked for an hour. He said that Mara had not spoken to them for 5 years and that she had cut herself off from them completely, that his family life was in tatters and that he was distraught and on his knees – that my emails asking where Rebeca was had been like a knife to his heart. He said he hadn’t seen Rebeca for 5 years. He did not know that I was in Brazil, he said, or that I had been in court and seen Mara.

I felt sorry for him initially, but then remembered everything that had happened - the imprisonment, the long years fighting his family’s pact of silence, his wife’s manipulation and connivance in my imprisonment and all his emails rejecting my attempts at negotiation and blaming me.

Five years?

I hadn’t seen Rebeca for 16 years and had been thrown into a filthy cell with 20 hard-core bandidos when I attempted to find my daughter, while he whined on about not seeing his granddaughter for five years. I gave him the priest’s number.

Final Day and No Rebeca

That afternoon, the day before I left Brazil, I went to SJDC again and spoke to the gate guard and to other neighbours who gave me more information about Rebeca. I told them who I was frankly and honestly, and they called other neighbours out to meet me. They were sympathetic and talked about a ‘weird’, ‘strange’ family, a desperately shy girl with no friends and how they had always suspected that there was something wrong. I had to contain myself and walk away round the corner and go back some time later.

On my last day, I went to the airport with Alexandre. He had assured me that everything would be OK as long as I had the court documents with me, but I was not so sure, so I insisted that he go with me. In the run-up to my departure, friends had even called the Brazil Desk at the Foreign Office in the UK to ask them to intercede with the Brazilian Federal Police to make sure I was allowed out of Brazil. They were all rebuffed with the usual Foreign Office mantra about third parties not being able to get involved.

Thanks, Brazil Desk!

Images of 2008 and Her Majesty’s Diplomatic Service’s sterling efforts to bring me a comb and shampoo when I was in prison raced in my mind. We went to the Federal Police station first and got a letter signed by the delegada to say that I could leave the country. My name was still on the police computer. They told me to present the letter with my passport at passport control. I did this. The girl looked at it, put it to one side, started typing my passport details into the computer, opened her mouth panicked and shocked and jumped up and took my passport to the back desk. I had to spend a gut-churning half hour with two PFs at the desk between passport control and duty free while they discussed how to put the authorisation into the system and joked about the Brazilian system and vindictive Brazilian women. The cop’s parting words after he had stamped my passport were, “you’re just child support – it’s nothing. Have a nice trip.” I said I wished they’d said that in 2008 and made my way to my flight.

Kafkaesque InFinality

Thinking over people’s reactions to this whole story, what is most galling and frustrating, perhaps, is the way in which some of the people I try to explain this to either simply don’t believe that it could have happened or start to interrogate, pick holes and offer advice on what I should have done as if I had never thought of these things. “Why don’t you open a Facebook page?”, “Why don’t you write a letter?”, “Why don’t you go on Brazilian social networking sites and try and find her that way?” “Why don’t you negotiate over child support and access?”, “Why don’t you get a private detective?” “Why don’t you ask a lawyer to ask for access?” as if these are things I had never done.

I have been ripped off by lawyers and private detectives, while Rebeca and I have been betrayed by the British and Brazilian governments and people who promised ‘to do the possible and the impossible’ to help me. I even ended up offering an impossibly large bet that nobody could think of anything that I hadn’t tried or thought of.

Nobody has come up with anything yet.

The endless, grinding, maddening, disappointing, frustrating, exhausting, soul-destroying head-battering, gut-wrenching, heart-squeezing no-words-left-to-describeness of this is beyond Alice through the Looking Glass.
It is worse than Kafka.

You can understand Kafka in Prague, with its suffocating, threatening, Central-European darkness, but this is Kafka in tropical Brazil, with its alegria and felicidade, its samba and its surface-level joy.

It is a dark Kafkaesque Carnival of Despair.

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell Signs VA International Child Abduction Bill into Law

2011-04-11T00:30:00.001+01:00

Virginia Governor McDonnell signed HB2361 into law last Wednesday; a bill drafted by the VA legislature based on a summary of international child abduction points, gleaned from a variety of sources encountered over the last 8 years. We had hoped it would have been signed the previous week, however a last minute technicality held up the final inking - no matter, HB2361 is now law and is effective July 1st, 2011.

The new law is a first.

Virginia is the first state to provide for the lawful seizure and forfeiture of the assets of abductors, and their accomplices, involved in the international abduction of children.

This applies whether children are abducted out of the US or into the Commonwealth of Virginia.

This is NOT a great law; but it is CERTAINLY A GREAT START!

Much of the initial Bill had been whittled away during the legislative process, notably the formation of a pool of judges to hear Hague Convention cases and mirror the efforts of the Federal judiciary.

This and other aspects are issues for the future.

I'd like to highlight the following people who were behind or inspired HB2361/SB1141:

Teresa Lauderdale - co-author of the Uniform Child Abduction Act; the idea for HB2361/SB1141 came about as a result of discussions with Teresa, an acknowledged expert and counselor in the field of international child abduction.

Larry Synclair - Larry is the father of Larry Jr, his son abducted to Russia from CA and recently back in contact after over a decade apart. Larry and I have never met, though we exchange the occasional email - Larry wrote the seminal Synclair-Cannon law for California, and is the uncredited source of the FL CAPA law which is based on the Synclair-Cannon Act. When I think of a legal or legislative situation I ask myself, "What would Larry do?" and occasionally I just ask Larry as there is nothing better than getting it from the horse's mouth.

Brandy Bond - co-proponent of HB2361/SB1141 and whirlwind lobbyist; mother of two children with international issues.

Finally, the legislators - it is because of the three following legislators we have a law - I believe they should all receive a note of thanks for getting this bill onto the statute books:

VA Delegate Jenn Mclellan - patron of HB2361

VA Senator Steve Martin - co-patron of SB1141

VA Senator Fred Quayle - co-patron of SB1141

For everyone who made phone calls and emails to VA legislators to garner support and increase awareness, thank you and see you next time :)

Pause for Thought

Now, before anyone starts backslapping one another - here are some of the reasons why this law is needed and why it needs to be strengthened even further:

Emily Koyama - abducted to Costa Rica

Marissa Joy Kvistad - abducted to Switzerland

Sage Bermudez - abducted to Mexico

Rebecca Boyle - abducted to Brazil

For many of you, these will be just names and photographs, but to me - I know the parents of all these children, and many more. Some have become my friends; people I care deeply for and in some instances I have photographs of these kids in my wallet with my own children.

None of these children has made it back home; and yet they are just a small selection from my records - the odds are that if you abduct a child, you will succeed. In passing HB2361, I sincerely hope the odds are reduced somewhat as far as Virginia is concerned, but only a fool is going to think this is enough.

The bottom line is we have to do more and there is a lot yet to do.

VA Governor McDonnell Expected to Sign Child Abduction Bill Today

2011-03-29T18:55:00.001+01:00

VA Governor's Signature Expected Today

Virginia House Bill HB2361 on International Child Abduction Prevention & Recovery passed the House and Senate last month with unanimous support, and has been awaiting the governor's final signature to be passed into law.

I received a phone call from Delegate Jennifer McClellan's office this morning, advising me that Governor McDonnell will sign the Bill into law today. (A video of Delegate McClellan's statement to the House is found at this link here with just one of the numerous unanimous votes).

With any luck, by midnight tonight, Virginia will have the first law in the US which provides for the seizure and forfeiture of assets of international child abductors who kidnap children, both to and from the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The Bill is not perfect.

I know because I wrote it.

A lot of the proposals also didn't make it through, such as the creation of a pool of judges to handle Hague Convention cases, together with a drastic tightening up of how the authorities are to handle the reporting of international child abduction cases.

However, these are all issues to be revisited in the next legislative session, and in the meantime, there are plans to seek introduction of the concept to other states.

For now, I'm just waiting on the call from the VA Capitol that HB2361 has finally made it onto the statute books.

Andrew Ko Update on William & Christopher Re-Adjusting Back to Home

2011-03-20T16:10:00.001Z

Father's Update on Ko Twins after return from Singapore to California

Andrew Ko successfully recovered his twin sons, Andrew and William and returned to California last week. The Ko twins return is the first return of children from Singapore since the ague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction went into effect.

However, the return of the Ko twins did not rely on the Hague Convention at all - Singapore judges decided to do it all on their own because it was the right thing to do to recognize the US held proper jurisdiction and not to give any assistance to an international child kidnapper.

Singapore ought to be proud of these judges - they have set a good example to everyone.

Here in Andrew Ko's own words is an update on what has been happening since William and Christopher made it back home to California:

The boys are doing great. They came home to their room late Tuesday night and immediately picked up their old toys. Some Japanese card game. Then I saw Christopher measuring his height against their bunk beds. He did a few chin ups on the upper frame, then laughed.

On Wednesday morning they woke up late due to jet lag. Poured themselves a glass of milk and had eggs for brunch. Then they went outside to play basketball.

We had to go see the Minor's Counsel so she can report to the judge that they are returned.

School will start on Monday at the same school they attended when they were abducted. It is 2 blocks away from home and is a familiar environment with friends. They know the basketball coach very well from a previous basketball program. They love basketball had basketballs with them at the airport so they will have lots of fun.

They have made great strides since the Singapore airport on Tues morning. They had a great time on the flight to LA and played the onboard video games, movies and ordered snacks from the attendants. Room service in the air!

At the Singapore airport, a brother-in-law to the mother came over to see me and said he wanted to talk to me. He said you have to remember to do the right thing for the boys. This is funny coming from Choy Kin Chong, a retired Singapore Army Colonel. Why didn't he call me 18 months ago to talk; or better yet talk to the boys' mother after they found out she is wanted by Interpol for kidnapping. I AM DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR THE BOYS. The Wong family has in Singapore 4 sisters, 2 brothers, 2 sister-in-laws, 3 brother-in-laws and none of them thought enough to talk to their sister to return the boys in 18 months? Instead, they financed her actions. From the mother's previous Declarations in the US, the funding came from the US and Singapore siblings. In Singapore the family business Fung Mui HKS Gararge R on Targore Lane funded her bills. In the US, sister Jane Lee-Shue and brother-in-law Richard from Clearwater FL run a Chinese restaurant that helped fund her here. Maybe if business slowed down, they can't help finance a kidnapper wanted by Interpol, FBI and the State of California!

When we were leaving the airport on Tues, I said Hi to the boys and they responded with "shut up asshole." Either the education system in Singapore or the culture at home has a problem, or both. The boys NEVER talked like that when they were here in the US. Aunty May and her daughter who were walking right next to the boys did not even blink an eye when the outburst came out. Aunty May, husband Derek and their 4 children live in the same home with the boys. Maybe this type of language is allowed in the home so there was no reaction from her at all. This is not a proper environment for impressionable boys. Just incredible that they talk like that.

As you know, child abduction is one of the worst form of child abuse. There will be adjustment and healing going forward. But the boys are doing extremely well for just 4 days. The plan is a playdate on Friday and possibly a sleepover with a few old buddies.

Andrew Ko Flying Abducted Twin Sons Home from Singapore - The First Return from Singapore

2011-03-15T10:34:00.001Z

Andrew Ko is at this moment sitting in Cathay Pacific 747 somewhere over the Pacific with his twin sons, abducted in 2009 from California to Singapore. Today, Singapore returns the first children abducted their from the US, under the Hague Convention, which is fast work given the Hague Convention only came into force on March 1 of this year in Singapore.

The return of the Ko twins after 18 months is hard on them, hard on Andrew and hard on their mother who is remaining in Singapore (and 'yes' I know she is the kidnapper). But this is normal in many instances and will pass fairly quickly. It is the long term affects on the children, which will come to develop as they get older, that highlights the truly abusive nature of international child kidnapping.

My feelings of sympathy for mom are curtailed. She has thoroughly manipulated and alienated the Ko twins, William and Christopher. In addition, she has thoroughly manipulated the legal systems of both the US and Singapore, and it hasn't stopped right up to this very moment. All to simply stop the children from having any relationship with their dad.

Mother was ordered to either (a) send the twins home by today, or (b) the father could recover them.

What follows is typical of some of the skullduggery perpetrated by international child abductors, and remember this is just the tip of an 18 month iceberg. This is in Andrew Ko's own words:

Hi All,

We checked-in and are waiting at the airline lounge for our flight out of Singapore in about 3 hours. This morning was touch and go. The mother did not deliver the boys on Monday 10AM as requested. I spent the day going between the police to make a report , my lawyer's and talking with the US Embassy officer. The US Embassy faxed a letter to the Judge who ordered the children returned and the Singapore Police highlighting the fact that the mother breached the order by not producing the airline tickets until well past the deadline set by the judge. I got a call around 7PM from a police officer who advised me to take the Police Report and the Court Order to the High Court to get further directions. When I was making the police report, I was told that "you are wanted" by the police. But I wasn't stopped at immigration so it was not a serious matter. I had to go to another police station and was told that the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority who is responsible for issuing birth certificates said I might have "falsified information" on the birth certificate, i.e. claiming I was the father of the boys when I was not. I told them I am the father PERIOD. I asked the investigator why it took ICA 9 years (Dec 2009) to ask this question when the birth certificate was issued in March 2000 when the children were born. He laughed. Just increditble. The mother's lawyer notified my lawyer that she wants an extra day and will deliver the boys at the Singapore Airlines check-in counter at 7.30AM on Tues. My main concern is she would put them on the flight as unaccompanied minors without me. Then last night I noticed that the mother provided copies of tickets for the boys on March 10 (they were due on Mar7) but the tickets were one way tickets. I immediately went to travel.state.govand sure enough you cannot enter the US with a one-way ticket using a foreign passport. The mother had fraudulently applied for Singapore passports for the boys (that is how they were able to leave in Aug 2009). I communicated this to the US Embassy officer and she had included this in the letter to the judge. The 1952 US Immigration Act Section 215b states it is unlawful for a US citizen to attempt to depart or enter the US without a valid US passport. The mother already broke that law when she abducted the boys with Singapore passports. I went to the airport at 6.30AM with my lawyer Mr. Teo. We explained the situation to the airline supervisor. He said they are travelling with US passports. I started to sweat. I called Consular Officer Rachel Sunden and she immediately called Washington and was able to confirm the boys DO NOT have valid US passports. We guess the mother provided a fake passport number so that she would buy one-way tickets to the US. Rachel found out later that the mother was advised by her US lawyer Cynthia De Petris that it is ok for the boys to enter the US with Singapore passports. This is against the law Cynthia! You should stick to Family Law and not immigration law. The airline did not and cannot check the boys in. It took about 45 min. to convince the family that the Court Order did not allow for the boys to travel alone. The mother has the option to accompany them but if she did not board the flight, I can retrieve the boys immediately. Mr. Teo and Rachel were able to talk the family into allowing the boys to go to the US Embassy to get passports accompanied by their Aunt and cousin. On the way out of the airport I said "hello boys" and one of them replied "shut up asshole." It is going to be a long road to normal. This family in Singapore really did a good job in ruining 2 perfectly good boys. We got to the Embassy and in about an hour got our emergency passports. Then we headed to the therapist. We offered the Aunt to accompany them and then to say her goodbyes. The boys were very angry at the therapist. They said they didn't love me, asked me to leave them alone and threw tissue at me plus kick a table towards me. The therapists Dorothy and Teresa were great and worke with them. Then the Aunt refused to leave. I explained to Dorothy that the longer the Aunt stays, the harder it is for the boys to accept that they are going back home. So after some explaining, the Aunt and cousin left. We were trying to be nice by offering the Aunt to accompany the boys to the Therapist and she wouldn't leave! Since the boys were acting up, I called my friend Phang and asked him to come pick us up and also asked a dear friend Vanessa to come and help. Vaness is the one who put up the posters of the mother and boys and was called into the police station. She is a real trooper. At 1PM we left and headed to the hotel to checkout. Another great friend Priscilla arranged for a large van and extended our checkout time at the hotel. Finally around 3PM we arrived at the airport and checked in. We had one more hurdle. That is leaving with new US passports when the boys entered with Singapore passports. It took a few minutes to explain and we are now sitting in the lounge. If all goes well, we will arrive at 915PM on Tues at LAX on Cathay Pacific flight 880 from Hong Kong. The journey for the boys is now starting. We will need your prayers, suggestions (which sometimes I might not listen to), and lots of love to get the boys back to the way they were. Thank you all for your help and support.

Andrew

For Andrew, William and Christopher, there is going to be a new beginning which will start at around 9am PST (midday EST), but no-one should be under any illusions about how difficult it is going to be. There will be some who will say (inevitably) why didn't the boys simply get left with mom rather than going through this upheaval.

My response to this is simple - listen to the adult victims of international child abduction and what they have to say about this heinous crime:

Sam's Story

Andrew Ko - Wins Order for Return of Twin Sons from Singapore

2011-03-03T16:12:00.001Z

Andrew Ko successfully won a return order from the courts in Singapore for his twin sons, William and Christopher. The boys were abducted from California to Singapore in August 2009, and in this instance the return order appears to be relatively quick - especially given Singapore has only recently signed the Hague Convention.

Rather than me prattle on, I think it better if Andrew's own words speak for him and what he
is asking us all to do:

Hello everyone,

I wanted to let you all know that I am in Singapore as I write, and we are hopefully on the

brink of some very positive news from the Singapore court. On March 3rd, the Singapore

judge is scheduled to rule on my motion to have the Singapore court recognize the US

Court Order, issued Sept. 14, 2010, awarding full, permanent custody to me. While

nothing is certain, there have been numerous indicators throughout this saga that

Singapore recognizes that the US is the appropriate forum for determining custody of my

sons. I am very, very hopeful that on March 3rd, the judge will rule that the US court

order is to be recognized and respected by Singapore, and the boys returned to my

custody to be brought home to the United States.

As we have seen in other cases, most notably Sean Goldman's, the most effective tool

to impart justice in cases of international parental abduction is the instigation of

government-to-government dialogue. Pressure applied through appropriate diplomatic

channels makes a difference for our children! This dialogue comes about almost

exclusively through the application of public pressure.

Therefore, I respectfully and passionately issue this call to action:

MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD! PLEASE WRITE TO THESE ELECTED OFFICIALS TODAY.

Please encourage your friends and associates to do the same. Please demand that

US diplomates and officials engage Singapore in order to adhere to the Hague Convention

on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and take an active role in ensuring

the safe, just and rightful return of these young victims to their father and to their home

here in the U.S.

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Use this link to email President Obama:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Use this link to email Attorney General Holder:
askdoj@usdoj.gov
Office of U.S. Representative Christopher H. Smith - New Jersey
2373 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
p 202-225-3765
f 202-225-7768

If you live in California, please write to Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein and your local

congress representative.
Office of U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer
501 I Street, Suite 7-600
Sacramento, CA 95814

Use this link to email Senator Boxer:
http://boxer.senate.gov/en/contact/policycomments.cfm

Office of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein
One Post Street, Suite 2450
San Francisco, CA 94101

Use this link to email Senator Feinstein:
http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe

The paragraph below is a sample that can be used for reaching out to elected officials.

Please email, fax, or call your Senators and Congress members in your home state, as

they will likely not respond to non-constituents.

Dear (official's name),
Christopher Ko and William Ko are minor children who were abducted to Singapore.

The US Government needs to communicate to the Singapore Government that we want

the boys returned. I am asking you as my elected official to contact Hillary Clinton -

State Dept, Attorney General Holder - Justice Dept and President Obama to ask that

they contact their counterparts in the Singapore Government to strongly express our

desire to see the boys returned home to the United States. The case is entering its

18th month and it is time my government got involved! Christopher's NCIC case number

is M648309789 and William's is M308382442.

On behalf of my boys, William and Christopher, who turn 11 this month, thank you from

the bottom of my heart.
Sincerely,
Andrew Ko

Singapore acceded to the Hague Convention in December 2010 and will start enforcing decisions
with effect from March 1st 2011 - the development means that Ko's US custody order is now
recognized by the Singaporean courts and the mother has been ordered to return the children.
This does not preclude her from appealing the decision, and there is still the thorny issue of
enforcement but for Andrew, William and Christopher at least, the prospect of reunification is
looking to be a very real and close prospect.

Do your best to make your voice heard and take 5 minutes to contact the Senators and President
Obama as Andrew Ko requests.

Emily Rose Hindle - 9 Years Old Today

2011-03-01T13:59:00.000Z

Emily Rose Hindle - 9 years old today - Happy Birthday Titch - Daddy's Coming!

Karl Hindle Indev Interview

The VA Bill is awaiting Gov. McDonnell's signature and Emily Koyama's case is in holding pattern while the Costa Rican courts get themselves sorted out. Meanwhile, the US appellate process has ended and it is now, finally, time to get back into court in FL to straighten things out.

I was interviewed over the weekend on the issue of international child abduction and one thing I said, and always say to left-behind Mom's and Dad's is not to quit.

When you were born, you were blue and silent for a fraction of time far too long for my comfort - what felt like an eternity passed before you took a breath and made sure the world knew you'd arrived.

Most of all, you marked my heart darling and it will never, ever fade.

Happy Birthday Emily Rose and we're not together still, but mark your Daddy well - I love you and I will never, ever give up on you.

All my Love and a Happy Birthday for You,

Daddy xxx

Virginia International Child Abduction Bill Passes Senate and House

2011-02-28T16:09:00.000Z

Virginia International Child Abduction Bill Passes Senate and House

The Bill which I drafted and submitted to the Virginia legislature with the help of Brandy Bond, has passed both the Senate and the House of Delegates with unanimous votes in both houses.

The President of the Senate and Speaker of the House have both signed off on the International Child Abduction Bill (HB2361) which is now with Virginia Governor McDonnell for signature.

The Bill provides for the seizure and forfeiture of the assets of international child abductors who abduct children both FROM and TO the Commonwealth of Virginia. I understand that Virginia is the very first state to enact legislation which specifically recognizes the plight of children abducted to the US, as opposed to simply being kidnapped from the country.

This makes Virginia a less-than-friendly haven for international child abductors kidnapping children to the state.

There are some aspects I wanted to see in the final Bill, but they didn't make it all the way through the process. These included the creation of a pool of judges to hear these cases, however there were technical issues raised by the VA Supreme Court justices which I hope we can address at the next legislative session.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "Politics is the art of the possible!" and we do what we can with what we've got. I feel it is important to remember that this is a process and not just an end in itself, so I expect to be banging on the doors of representatives again later this year.

I'd like to thank everyone involved, most especially the irrepressible Brandy Bond, Delegate Jennifer McClellan and State Senators Fred Quinn and Steve Martin for sponsoring the Bill and nursing it through the legislative process.

ABC News on Abductions to Japan

2011-02-15T22:21:00.003Z

ABC News Airs Investigative Special on Abductions to Japan

Tuesday & Wednesday 6.30pm EST

I've neglected the issue with Japan for quite long enough, but then there has been some excellent work done by the left behind parents at BACHome led primarily by US Navy Commander Paul Toland and Dr Christopher Savoie.

Tune in and get a glimpse of what it means to be a left behind parent and more importantly, to be a child victim of international child abduction.

Emily Koyama - AM Costa Rica Voices Concern Over Failure to Return Child to US

2011-02-15T21:13:00.004Z

AM Costa Rica is the main online newspaper for English-speakers in Costa Rica and has been following the unfolding Koyama abduction story closely.

I'm pleased to hear there is at least one voice of reason in Costa Rica; a country which has a strong cultural bias to mothers, even kidnapping mothers.

AM Costa Rica asks some hard questions of the Costa Rican authorities, such as how do officials justify ignoring the Hague Convention in not promptly returning Emily back to the United States?

AM Costa Rica also questions the credibility of the kidnapping mother's claim for refugee status. How can Trina Atwell - the kidnapping American mother - who has no legal rights to the child justifiably claim refugee status for Emily Koyama in the first instance?

The American father, Roy Koyama has full and sole legal rights to Emily Koyama after an award by the US court - which the Costa Rican courts have accepted. Why is Trina Atwell still at liberty in Costa Rica and in possession of an American child she has abducted?

This editorial also raises the issue of trade sanctions or suspension of aid to Costa Rica by the United States, and notes the ominous silence on this subject by the US Embassy in Costa Rica. I don't think it will get that far - Costa Rican courts have consistently ruled in favor of returning Emily Koyama - just not very fast. The hope has to be that Costa Rican officials can and will promptly deal with this mess which has dragged on for far too long and made a mockery of the legal process and authorities in Costa Rica.

On the other hand, the suspension of a multi-billion dollar trade deal with Brazil resulted in the return of Sean Goldman within 48 hours of being imposed in 2009. There is also groundswell of public opinion in the US against the lack of compliance from other countries who fail to promptly return children. Tonight ABC will be airing the first two-part documentary on the plight of kidnapped American children being held in Japan.

One thought I am pondering on - how long it will be before the Costa Rican media picks up on the fact that there are Costa Rican children, abducted to the United States and other countries, who are relying on the Hague Convention to get their Costa Rican children back to their left-behind mothers and fathers in Costa Rica?

If Costa Rica cannot abide by the Hague Convention - why should other countries return Costa Rican children back to Costa Rica parents?

With attribution and kind permission of AM Costa Rica, I reprint the article here and the link to the original article in AM Costa Rica

An A.M. Costa Rica editorial
Apparently international treaties are just suggestions too

How do Costa Rican officials justify ignoring the Hague Convention on Child Abduction?

Time after time runaway moms from the United States come here with a child and try to get the courts here to block U.S. arrest warrants and judicial orders to return the child.

The latest case is that of Trina Atwell and her 2-plus-year-old daughter Emily. Ms. Atwell is wanted for child abduction, and a court in Green County, Missouri, has awarded the biological father full custody. She claims she fled violence and drug abuse. He denies that.

A.M. Costa Rica is in no position to determine who is telling the truth. But neither are Costa Rican officials. The international treaty says that jurisdiction rests with the Green County judge. There the evidence exists to adjudicate the case and confirm or award custody. A complicating factor is that Ms. Atwell was married to a Costa Rican when she had the child.

One would think that Ms. Atwell would want to go back there and reopen the case, at least to be with the other daughter she left behind.
One would think that Costa Rican judicial officials would want to take immediate and decisive action to comply with the Hague Convention if only to avoid another long court case in an overwhelmed judicial system.

Ms. Atwell is seeking refugee status for herself and her child.

Of course, this is a strategic play because no right-minded individual would compare the lumbering, flawed judicial system here to the one in the United States.

But we also wonder if she does not have legal custody how can she apply for refugee status on behalf of her daughter?

Of course, in Costa Rica mothers are sacred. Whenever there is an international custody dispute, women gather at the judicial complex to support uncritically the mother of the hour.

Some supporters of Roy Koyama, Emily's father, have suggested that the United States freeze international aid from Costa Rica. A.M. Costa Rica will not go that far, but the lack of response and action by the U.S. Embassy make one wonder.

— Feb. 14, 2011

Emily Koyama - a Perverse Twist

2011-02-13T19:54:00.004Z

Emily Koyama was released from foster care and returned to her mother, Trina Atwell who originally kidnapped Emily to Costa Rica in February 2009. Emily had been taken into protective custody in preparation for her repatriation to the U.S. after her father, Roy Koyama had won custody in Missouri and the Hague Convention application in Costa Rica.

The case is being watched with intense interest by the U.S. Government in Washington D.C. and the U.S. Embassy in Costa Rica, and not least by the dozen or so other left-behind American parents with children kidnapped to that country.

Emily Koyama was the first child to be ordered home by Costa Rica.

The abducting mother, Trina Atwell successfully solicited the support of the Defensoria de los Habitantes, a non-governmental group which represents the rights of women. The Defensoria was responsible for filing two writs of habeas corpus, the first of which was heard on Friday by the Costa Rican Constitutional Court (Sala IV).

That hearing heard the first of the Defensoria's claims on behalf of Atwell - that the return of Emily Koyama to the United States was unconstitutional.

The court threw out the mother's claims and ruled Emily's repatriation to Costa Rica was correct and constitutional.

In a perverse twist, the same court also ordered the immediate release of Emily BACK to Atwell because the Defensoria had filed on her behalf a second writ claiming refugee status for both her and Emily.

The claim for refugee status has raised eyebrows in both the U.S. and Costa Rica. Atwell had previously publically declared she was going to return to the United States and raised around $2,000 to do so from donations. The question is how serious is her claim for refugee status when she was clearly prepared to voluntarily return to sort out her mess?

There are also questions being raised about the timing of the Defensoria's move. The spokesman for the Defensoria, Ahmed Tabash stated that the Defensoria had been involved since the December hearings which ultimately ordered the return of Emily to America. Why then has neither the Defensoria nor Atwell at any time in the last two years raised the issue of refugee status before? Clearly there is a large amount of gaming the system going on in Costa Rica, and something which is to be hoped will be dealt with summarily.

The controversy surrounding the Atwell claim to be a refugee from the United States is nothing new. Chere Lyn Tomayko was successfully granted refugee status after kidnapping her child from Texas and like Atwell, claiming abuse. Very troubling, the Defensoria did not make inquiries of the Texas judge in that case - the Texan judge stated that no allegations of abuse had ever been brought before him, and the Defensoria has failed to ask the Missouri judge in the Koyama case too.

The question must be asked - is Costa Rica really serious about performing its obligations under international law, or is it another country which has just signed up to look good?

I trust it is the former, but Emily remains unlawfully retained there and her father is now asking for trade sanctions to be applied in the same way a $2.75 billion deal with Brazil was vetoed by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) - 48 hours afterwards, Sean Goldman was finally returned from Brazil after 5 long years.

Day 9 for Emily Koyama in Foster Care in Costa Rica

2011-02-10T06:44:00.007Z

It is Day 9 for Emily Koyama who continues to be unlawfully retained from her Daddy in the United States.

Emily was set to come home before Christmas, but her mother - Trina Atwell - who kidnapped Emily in February 2009 disappeared. The Costa Rican court reconvened after the Holiday Season and ordered Emily home - little Emily Koyama was taken into protective foster care to ensure her mother did not abduct her again.

Atwell sought the intercession of a women's rights agency - the Defensoria - in Costa Rica.However, AM Costa Rica, an online news outlet reported today,

Costa Rican officials seem to accept without question the claims by the woman that they have been abused. In the case of Ms. Atwell, the Defensoría said that she was a victim of family violence and fled from the United States to safeguard her physical and psychological integrity and the lives of both.

Acting on Atwell's behalf, they filed for Atwell and Emily Koyama to be treated as refugees from the United States. Without checking with the US judge in Missouri who has already ruled on the issues of Atwell's claims to be a victim of domestic violence, the Costa Rican Defensoria immediately asserts Trina Atwell is a victim of domestic violence and further, the return of Emily back to the United States (from where she was kidnapped) is additional violence against the mother!

This also seems to fly in the face of the fact that Atwell was claiming she was ready to return before December, provided Koyama would have his MO custody order set aside. In other words, if he agreed to drop custody she'd come back.

What I find particularly egregious is the timing of this claim for refugee status. Again according to AM Costa Rica, the Defensoria had been acting with Atwell since the December hearings when it was then ordered to return Emily home to the US:

In a news release Thursday, the Defensoría noted that it had been working with Ms. Atwell as an adviser in judicial actions since December and recently placed its own action in favor of the woman and child in the Sala IV constitutional court.

Did the Costa Rican Defensoria assist Atwell in concealing Emily from the authorities prior to Christmas so they could then play this refugee card?

We'll never know, but as AM Costa Rica continues, the Defensoria has not even bothered to consult with the American judge who dealt with the initial allegations of violence - they are simply taking the word of the mother at face value:

...Ahmed Tabash, who is in charge of the Defensoría press office also said that the agency had not talked to the U.S. judge involved in the case nor to the husband who is in Missouri.

That really does not look good and the motivation of the Defensoria has got to be seriously questionned for acting as it has - after all, where were they for the last 2 years as the Costya Rican courts moved again and again to return this kidnapped 100% American child back home to the US?

Only a couple of weeks ago, Atwel stated in numerous public forums, including Bring Sean Home, that she was planning to return and raising money from donations to effectuate this and post any bail money she needed to post given there is an outstanding kidnapping warrant for her in MO. It was only after the Costa Rican judge got fed-up with her antics and moved to enforce the return order that Atwell played the refugee card.

But my question here is- if Atwell was so terrified, so frightened of Koyama that she could even qualify as a refugee - why was she telling everyone she was ready to return?

It seems Trina is only frightened when she isn't getting her own way.

I also find this refugee issue troubling because of a simple fact overlooked - Trina Atwell has no custody rights in this matter whatsoever. In law, she has no rights - she simply has possession of the child (or at least she did until PANI took Emily into protective custody).

How can Atwell ask for refugee status for a child she has no custody over? It's not as if you or I could take a kid to Canada and ask to be called refugees, and by the way I'll keep the kid I kidnapped.

Sadly, this post comes on the same day the US Department of Justice issued a comprehensive report entitled, "The Crime of Family Abduction" which underlines the continuing trauma child abduction inflicts upon left-behind parents, but most of all little girls and boys like Emily Koyama.

I have tried desperately hard to find evidence AGAINST the father - Roy Koyama.

Trina Atwell, assisted by her sister, Lynette Garet, have made extensive claims of domestic violence, sexual abuse and drug addiction with multiple arrests and convictions for a plethora offenses.

Bear in mind that all these allegations have already been tested in court, both in the United States and Costa Rica - and have been thrown out. Trina Atwell was found to be neither a victim nor credible in her allegations.

Atwell and Garet's credibility has already been called into question given their false claim the father had tried to stop Trina Atwell from seeing Emily while in foster care - a blatant lie as Koyama has done no such thing. Still Garet and Atwell claims this makes Koyama a "Monster!" and they continue to claim this on their Facebook page.

I think they should be looking in the mirror given what they have done to Emily so far.

Roy Koyama - the Brutal Unvarnished Truth

I have performed exhaustive searches of public and court records, trying to find evidence of Roy's supposed addiction to drugs and a violent history of kicking the proverbial out of everyone he meets.

This is what I have discovered:

2005 - Koyama was charged with a domestic violence misdemeanor - the case was thrown out as having no probable cause -his then wife (not Trina) and he got into an argument, she called the cops and in Butte CA it is a mandatory arrest policy which means you call, they haul and someone will go to jail - in this case, as in 99% of cases the cops hauled the man off to jail. The final result was a verdict of NOT GUILTY (do you all hear that - not guilty means he never did anything to begin with)

November 1992 - Koyama got into a fight - that is, when he was in his early-20's (19 years ago) he got into a fight (not with a woman but another man) - he pled no contest and received a fine.

THAT's IT!

One fist fight 19 years ago and a marital argument blown out of proportion. None of which involved Trina Atwell in the slightest degree.

Now where are all these drug convictions and violent crime convictions Koyama has supposed to have committed?

Unless they are even further back in time which takes them before computers were invented (I mean - a 19 year old misdemeanor conviction justifies kidnapping a kid overseas...come on Atwell, pull the other leg it has bells on) - I cannot find anything to show Koyama is not a fit parent.

But then on the other hand....

Trina Atwell:

Model Mother - kidnapped youngest daughter overseas to Costa Rica - abandoned another daughter behind in the United States;
Model Wife - marries a Costa Rican man apparently for a green card, leaves him shortly thereafter and has Emily with Roy - leaves Roy for someone else, not her husband - eventually reunites with husband after kidnapping Emily to Costa Rica where he just happens to be and she needs someone to look after her;
Model Witness - loses her case in 2 courts in 2 countries - claims allegations which still go unsupported by any evidence except her word, repeatedly shown to be thoroughly dishonest in making false claims and allegations;
Model Role Model - despite claims of heavy substance abuse against the father, which seems to be a load of balls, Trina has an issue with alcohol;
Model Home Provider - since being taken to Costa Rica, Emily Koyama has been shuttled between different addresses and locations as Trina Atwell sought to hide and manipulate the Costa Rican legal process - something other left-behind parents will be well aware of from their own experiences; and
Model People - Henner Chavarria, the several times cuckolded husband is also no stranger to alcohol it seems.

I don't like saying these things - there is no pleasure in any of this whatsoever - not least because this is Day 9 of a poor, frightened little girl sleeping in foster care, somewhere in Costa Rica, when she should be sound asleep back home in Springfield Missouri....and would be except for her appallingly behaved mother who cares about her so very much...in between partying like there is no tomorrow left

Now I am off to vomit.

Emily Koyama - Update on Costa Rican Abduction

2011-02-09T01:13:00.006Z

Trina Atwell & sister, Lynette Garet Play on Costa Rican Emotions

Claim Father Filed for an Injunction Preventing Mother from Seeing Emily in Foster Care

This is Day 8 of Emily Koyama being in foster care.

Wherever or whoever you are, tonight you will hopefully know where your children are.

We know where Emily Koyama is, or at least we know she is in protective custody to stop her kidnapping mother and sister, Lynette Garet from hiding Emily again.

On Trina Atwell's Facebook page - Keep Emily Safe in Costa Rica - largely administered by Atwell's sister, Lynette Garet, there are a number of claims made to supporters with the simple intention of stirring emotions and garnering sympathy.

One claim I will deal with now - Garet claims Roy Koyama filed for an injunction in Costa Rica to stop Emily's kidnapping mother from seeing her:

THIS IS 100% FALSE!

COMPLETELY UNTRUE - THERE HAS BEEN NO SUCH FILING

LYNETTE GARET & TRINA ATWELL ARE LYING TO YOU!!

PRODUCE THE FILING PAPERS PLEASE- SHOW YOU ARE TELLING THE TRUTH OR ADMIT YOU ARE LYING TO US ALL

HOW MUCH LONGER DOES EMILY HAVE TO STAY IN FOSTER CARE WHILE YOU GAME THE SYSTEM TRINA?

For those who have been leaving the odd pro-Trina comment on my blog - thank you - even bad comments are better than none.

We are all in a situation where Trina's word is what is carrying this - she claims all sorts of things - on NO EVIDENCE and 2 LOSSES IN 2 COUNTRIES COURTS.

If she is lying to you about this what else is she lying about - and remember where Emily Koyama is sleeping tonight - get past the dogma and see the child.

Virginia International Child Abduction Bill Garners Unanimous Votes

2011-02-07T15:35:00.002Z

The proposed international child abduction Bill I drafted for the Virginia legislature, and which my colleague, Brandy Bond and I have put to the legislature, continues to move through both the VA Senate and House of Delegates.

So far the votes have been unanimous in both Senate and the House.

The Senate voted on SB1141 on Februrary 3rd and with a full Senate voting the decision was a unanimous 40 votes for:

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?111+vot+SV0201SB1141+SB1141

The Virginia House of Delegates also voted in full session on HB2361 on February 4th and again there was a unanimous vote (only one delegate did note vote as they were absent:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?111+vot+HV0476+HB2361

The Bill could become law as early as this week. Good news for left-behind parents in Virginia.

Emily Koyama - Mother Claims Domestic Violence

2011-02-05T14:16:00.008Z

Emily Koyama was abducted to Costa Rica in February, almost two years ago. Emily only 2 years old today and was a very young baby when when her mother, Trina Atwell kidnapped her from Springfield Missouri.

Trina Atwell has made a string of allegations against the father, Roy Koyama.

The first allegation is Roy was physically and sexually abusive. Atwell is unclear in her allegations on whether Roy was abusive towards her or to Emily or both.

What is beyond dispute is Atwell has been making allegations and claiming to have evidence in the form of police records and such. Despite 2 years elapsing, Atwell has so far shown no inclination to disclose her evidence, either to the US or Costa Rican courts and certainly not to anyone else.

Needless to say, Atwell and her supporters are quite happy to continue making these allegations.

The second set of allegations claims Roy Koyama is a drug addict. Again, Trina Atwell claims to have evidence, but it is not forthcoming.

Trina Atwell's Character

Trina Atwell comes across as an articulate young woman. Her recent performance on a Youtube video makes it clear that she is well-presented and knows her lines very well.

The lack of any evidence against Roy - which she claims to have - is deeply disturbing.

Is Trina being untruthful?

I think so, and here are my reasons why.

Trina Atwell is a Recovering Alcoholic

Far from the image of being a paragon of American motherhood, Trina has her own demons. Atwell is a member of Alcoholics Anonymous in her efforts to handle her addiction to alcohol, in which she should be supported.

It is Atwell's issue with alcohol, fueled by her partying lifestyle which is well documented on her Facebook website, which caused issues in the Koyama household.

Trina is a Party Girl

Visiting Atwell's Facebook pages, they are replete with photos of bar and club scenes. Trina by any standards is a good looking woman, however where was Emily while Trina was partying the night away.

Young babies need mom and dad at home to look after them.....sober!

Trina Cheated on Her Husband, Henner Chavarria

Henner Chavarria married Trina Atwell, which is why Trina sometimes hyphenates her name to Atwell-Chavarria.

Atwell left the Henner Chavarria and took up with Roy - by whom she had Emily.

After leaving Roy amidst her theatrical claims of being abused, she took up with Chavarria (by now in Costa Rica) where she left off - the pair having never divorced.

Let's be clear - Trina marries, has a baby by another man and returns with baby to her husband.

Atwell is not a model wife either.

Atwell has Abandoned another Daughter

Emily is not Atwell's first child. Atwell has another daughter in California, whom she abandoned. In addition to eluding justice in the US with the kidnapping of Emily Koyama to Costa Rica, Atwell has abandoned her eldest daughter in America.

Roy Koyama on the other hand appears to be someone else than the pill popping, Trina bashing fiend he's been painted out to be. He is the father of two sons form a previous marriage, with whom he has extensive visitation - I know because I've seen them on Skype video. They are hardly the picture of threatened children and Roy is hardly the picture of an abusive man.

Roy has also followed the law - Trina has not and she has lost in both the United States and Costa Rica. To lose in two countries legal systems is a sign you need to wake up, but in Atwell's case and those supporting her, it simply means let's find something else to do to get around this.

Meanwhile, while Trina games the system, Emily is in a foster care system in Costa Rica instead of being home with her father in America (and Roy Koyama is the one with the custody order - not Trina Atwell).

Perhaps those claiming Trina Atwell is a wronged mother should take another look.

Meanwhile, the process in Costa Rica grinds on. While the courts have so far sided with Roy Koyama and ordered the return of the child, Atwell in tandem with several women's rights groups in Costa Rica and the US, has been mounting a rear guard campaign to keep Emily in Costa Rica.

A media campaign is being waged in Costa Rica by Atwell and her supporters to persuade public opinion to keep Emily in Costa Rica. Costa Rica has so far refused to return any child to the US under the Hague Convention and Emily Koyama would be the first.

I sincerely hope that the Costa Rican authorities, and most of all ordinary Costa Ricans understand that Emily is the victim here - a victim of abuse at the hands of an alcoholic mother, who cheated on her husband, who has abandoned another child and is a fugitive from justice.

Who you and I believe between Roy Koyama and Trina Atwell is not the point - Emily has been kidnapped to Costa Rica by Trina Atwell. Emily Koyama should be returned quickly to let the American courts decide what to do with an American child, who has no connection to Costa Rica, except to have been kidnapped there by a blue-eyed, 100% homegrown American gringa.

Statement of Ken Thompson - Father of Andrew Thompson

2011-02-04T00:53:00.009Z

Andrew Thompson was abducted from Australia by his mother. Ken changed his life drastically - vowing to find Andrew, he took early retirement from his job with the fire service and quite literally got on his bike.

Ken cycled through the UK and across Europe to raise awareness of his missing son's plight.

Ken found Andrew and recently returned to Australia after a successful Hague Convention hearing, which incidentally took place in the Hague - Andrew was located in Holland last year.

The following is the official statement from Ken regarding what happened and the outcome - a happy one at least this time.

Monday 31 January 2011

STATEMENT FROM KEN THOMPSON

Thank you all for attending. I am indebted to the media and my many supporters here and around the world for the success of my three-year quest to find my son and bring him home.

I know you are all interested in hearing about what has happened since Andrew was found in The Netherlands in September last year. Due to my undertaking to the Dutch Courts and restrictions imposed by the Family Court of Australia now that we are back in Australia I am unable to give you a lot of information.
What I can say is this:

Andrew was found whilst attending a school in Amsterdam on 6 September last year when an alert teacher became suspicious and entered the words "Missing child Australia" into Google. She quickly discovered Andrew's website and was assured by the extensive media reports that were posted there that the Dutch authorities needed to be alerted immediately. The authorities and Interpol acted very quickly and from that date until 5 December 2010 he was cared for in a Dutch Child Protection facility.

In May 2008, following his abduction on 24 April 2008, I made an application under the Hague Convention to have Andrew returned to Australia. However, his location was unknown for over two years. Once he was discovered in The Netherlands the application could progress. My application was eventually heard on 30 November 2010 by five judges at the District Court in The Hague who ordered his speedy return. That decision was appealed and the appeal was heard on 13 January 2011 by four different judges at the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. This court upheld the original decision and ordered that Andrew was to be returned to Australia with me no later than 25 January 2011. Between the date Andrew was found and 5 December 2010 I visited him regularly under the professional guidance of Dutch child protection counsellors. Gradually, we re-established our previously warm and loving relationship. On 6 December 2010 Andrew was released into my care until travel preparations could be made. We spent our first Christmas together for three years.

Once I had the necessary travel documents, Andrew and I left The Netherlands on 18 January 2011 and returned to Australia on 24 January 2011. That is all I can say about Andrew, now or in the future. 1 would like to thank all the thousands of people and the many government agencies and missing children organisations around the world who supported me in my global search for my son, which I have been told is the biggest successful international search for a missing person ever mounted. I am not a wealthy man but I can ride a bike. So instead of chartering a jet and searching the world, I took my bike to Europe and started pedalling. I carried Andrew's favourite soft toy on my handlebars. I prayed someone would recognise his face on my cycling shirt or his web page. Someone did.

I would like to say something about the international legal mechanism, known as the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction that ensured that Andrew would return home.

The Hague Convention is often the only hope for left-behind parents when their child or children have been abducted across international borders. It is also the only legal mechanism to enable abducted children to be returned. The Australian Attorney General's office, which is the first call in activating a Hague Convention application receives reports of about 150 children a year being abducted overseas by a parent, without the consent or knowledge of the left-behind parent. This means that EVERY YEAR, at least three Australian families EVERY WEEK are going through the pain and loss that Andrew and I experienced. The scale of the problem at the international level is measured in thousands of children every year and these figures are increasing.

This problem is compounded in Australia because unless parenting matters are before the courts International Parental Child Abduction is not a criminal offence in this country. This creates enormous difficulties for parents of abducted children, because Australian agencies are not automatically empowered to carry out investigations within Australia that could lead to the location of their children. Often, the parent whose child has been abducted has to try to pick up the investigative threads themselves while bearing the enormous financial and emotional costs associated with locating their children.

This situation needs to change and requests have been made to the Attorney-General by myself, several law reform associations, parenting groups, and missing children organisations asking that the Australian Government seriously reconsiders its position about criminalisation of this heinous act, which amounts to child abuse. To make matters worse, it is not known how many more international parental child abductions from Australia go unreported or how many children are taken to countries that are not signatories to The Convention. It is suspected that the numbers are at least equal to those cases that are reported to the authorities.

Although there were some difficulties, The Hague Convention was successfully applied in Andrew's case. However, one concern held by myself and many other parents around the world is that The Convention, ratified in 1984, has not kept pace with international social, cultural, and political changes and that its ability to return children who have been abducted is being adversely affected by these changes.

We are also concerned that there are still many countries that are not signatories to The Convention. Governments around the world owe it to our children to make sure the Convention is updated as quickly as possible to reflect these changes to make sure it retains its original intent to return abducted children to their countries of habitual residence as quickly as possible, and to ensure that as many countries as possible sign-up to The Convention to increase the likelihood of these children being returned.

I am now calling on the Australian Government to play a key role in having the Convention reviewed to better reflect today's world and to encourage as many countries as possible to become signatories to the Convention. This will increase the likelihood of abducted children being located and returned as quickly as possible. I am also asking that the Australian Government carries out an urgent review of its position about the criminalisation of International Parental Child Abduction.

Andrew's international plight has now come to an end and the Australian media was instrumental in making that happen, along with their colleagues in many other countries. However, I would now like to ask the national and international media to please respect Andrew's privacy and give him a chance to be a normal little Aussie boy once more.

Thank you for coming
Ken Thompson

NY Judge Takes Us Down, Federal Court Puts Us Back Up!

2011-01-26T18:16:00.005Z

Many readers will know the blog was taken down due to the issuance of a restraining order by NY Supreme Court Judge Arthur Schack just before Christmas.

If you are interested to know more of the case, go to this link for New York's court and enter my name as the defendant:

http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASSearch?param=P

Apparently, Judge Schack does not believe I should be allowed to write or say that a convicted fraudster, who I cannot name but let's call him "Lord Voldermort" for now, is indeed a convicted fraudster. Clearly free speech and the First Amendment have somehow gotten forgotten about here.

The case has been featured on the Citizen's Media Law Project too - given this is run by a legal team from Harvard Law School, somehow I doubt Lord Voldermort will be suing them any time soon.

Lord Voldermort came to recent prominence due to his masquerade as a devoted father whose child was abducted to Macau and was sold to a pedophile ring. When confronted on that story, he changed it to his son was abducted to New Zealand. When confronted on why there was no information on the abduction from the US, he changed his story to his son was abducted from Canada.

As far as we can make out - all false.

Lord Voldermort then attached himself with the proponents of the Florida Child Abduction Prevention Act and Carolyn Ann Vlk.

Lord V then testified before the FL Senate that he was a left-behind parent ad nauseum - at the same time, he was soliciting money from donors and corporate sponsors to further their "work".

This was reported on by the St Petersburg Times and Miami Herald.

Lord Voldermort claims $5 million in damages for defamation and damage to his reputation and without any notice to me, filed for contempt on January 3rd, 2011 - Judge Schack duly obliged and issued an ARREST WARRANT for yours truly.

The New York case has been stopped by the Federal Court, which accepted my request to transfer proceedings to its jurisdiction. There is something strange going on when you cannot say a convicted fraudster is a convicted fraudster - next I won't be able to say a spade is a spade. I once said of someone that, "They wouldn't recognize the truth if it jumped up and bit them...and in any event, if it did they'd run to court for an injunction against it!"

How true.

There is also something strange going on when this blog is the only target of Lord Voldermort's ire - he has so far not bothered to sue the wealthy publishers of the St Petersburg Times and Miami Herald who ran their stories on Lord V, or the consumer champion and fraud watchdog, RipOff Report - all of whom have oodles of money for which Lord V has a self-confessed "addiction".

After filing in Federal Court, Lord Voldermort ran for California, however he was served with the federal papers a week last Sunday. Since when, his lawyers have dumped him in both State and Federal court actions and seem reluctant to cooperate any further - the phrase, "rats deserting a sinking ship" springs to mind. Strange how a California resident sues an Englishman in Virginia in New York court....something of a jurisdictional conflict going on there too.

Until the Federal judge gives me the go ahead, I'll refrain from publishing photographs or his name, in order to keep Google happy. however, for many readers, you will be only too well aware of the chubby, goatee bearded man with an extensive history of lying, fraud convictions, jail time and extravagant claims to be a wealthy media magnate who will be sparing no loose change in getting your child back.

Except he doesn't have a dime - unless it's your dime.

Emily Koyama - Abducted to Costa Rica - An Appeal to her Mother, Trina Atwell

2010-12-16T19:00:00.004Z

Emily Koyama was born in 2008 to Trina Atwell and Roy Koyama. The relationship ended and Trina took Emily to Costa Rice and wrongly retained her there. Costa Rica has issued a return order which Trina is currently defying and an arrest warrant is outstanding for her in Missouri.

Emily is now 2 and was due to fly home to Missouri this Tuesday, and back to her father who has won custody, though the court in Missouri may decide differently in future (depending on Atwell's conduct now).

The situation is rapidly escalating with US federal agencies seeking a UFAP warrant (Unlawful Flight from Prosecution) and the Costa Rican authorities looking at issuing the same.

There has to be a way forward out of this situation!

The mother, Trina Atwell, is looking at maybe facing some jail time in the US (probably none as state prosecutions are so few and far between and jailtime is almost unheard of for a mother) and surrendering to the US Embassy in Costa Rica to avoid this mess spiralling out of control.

The alternative is a life on the run in Costa Rica, eventual capture and the certainty of jail time in Costa Rica (not a good thing). Meanwhile the FBI would look to have her deported upon completion of that sentence to face jail time in the US. Emily in the interim would be in the sole care of her daddy, and likely lose many years with her mom who would be serving time in Costa Rican and US jails.

There must be a way out of this...and there is.

Trina - if you are reading this, this is your way out. You must surrender to the US Embassy with Emily. If you do this, we can immediately work on getting the prosecution in Green County MO dropped and getting you and Roy to work together for Emily's sake. No-one wants to see you go to jail or for Emily to lose you or her daddy.

This is a difficult time for you right now - take a deep breath and come forward. Do the right thing here - do not run the risk of jail in Costa Rica and Emily not being able to see you at all - you still have a chance to keep Emily in the Green County court, but you must come home and face the music now.

I'll pray for all of you, but I'll pray for you the most - please come home.

Virginia Goes Ahead with International Child Abduction Bill

2010-12-02T16:52:00.004Z

I drafted an outline for a proposed Bill dealing with international Child Abduction Prevention & Recovery.

The text of the outline is reproduced below and the legal drafting is now with VA legislative services after two State Senators have agreed to act as co-Chief Patrons.

The key elements include:

Creation of a specialist pool of judges to hear cases;
A focus on delivering judicial education to those who need it, particularly on the Hague Convention;
A mandatory reporting system;
Mandated acceptance of missing child reports by the State Police;
Introduction of criminal offenses for international child abduction, both TO and FROM Virginia; and
The freezing and liquidation of abductor's assets and their accomplices.

This Bill builds on the work of Larry Synclair in particular and his seminal law, the Synclair-Cannon Act of California, but I hope it also takes the issue further and will deliver specific assistance to LBPs and their children.

I welcome your input - contact me at karl4work@gmail.com

OUTLINE OF PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION & RECOVERY BILL

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to deter international child abductions (ICA) and to render practical assistance to left-behind parents in the recovery of abducted children.

The proposed bill is a no-cost to taxpayers measure.

This bill will also place the Commonwealth at the forefront of international child abduction protection developments in the United States.

The bill will also contain measures to recognize the plight of children internationally abducted to the Commonwealth of Virginia from abroad.

The bill will also contain criminal penalties for non-compliance as well as provide for better-educated and experienced judges to deal with matters concerning international child issues, by ensuring adherence to existing federal guidelines (the “risk factors”) and by focusing educational efforts on a select pool of judges to deal with these issues.

PROPOSED MEASURES

1. Creation of a Pool of Judges

Currently, all state, circuit and county judges have jurisdiction over international child matters, notably with the use of the primary international treaty, The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980). This has led to inexperienced judges dealing with cases for which they are ill-suited by training, experience and temperament.

Creating a pool of judges who will be automatically assigned to hear international child issues will ensure that current educational resources are focused upon a smaller group of judges who will also be able to gain the appropriate level of experience to handle a frequently complex area of law.

2. Judicial Education

As stated in 1. above, creating a select pool of judges to handle international cases of visitation, custody and abduction will improve judicial outcomes for children and parents, as well as serve to improve the reputation of the Commonwealth as a model for handling such cases.

Educational resources will be more focused and of greater depth and value to those judges assigned or selected to constitute the pool. Particularly, greater awareness will be achieved of the issues and the framework which exists at federal and international level to assist in resolution of international child abduction and retentions, both of children abducted overseas and of children abducted from overseas to the Commonwealth.

3. Mandatory Reporting System

Currently, there is no reporting system or central repository of information on international child abduction at state or federal level. This results in confusion and disagreement on the scale of the problem of international child abduction cases. The US Department of State’s Office of Childrens Issues does not collect or collate statistics which have generic or specific value; many cases fall between the cracks in the current framework as a consequence, indeed many go unreported.

It shall be mandated that international child abductions to and from the Commonwealth be collated by a central repository body.

4. Mandatory Reporting & Law Enforcement

Upon a child not being returned to the jurisdiction, on the following day the left-behind parent shall be allowed to make, and law enforcement compelled to accept, a missing child report.

The missing child report shall be made to State Police.

Upon a child being internationally abducted to the jurisdiction, State Police shall be compelled to accept directly from the overseas left-behind parent a missing child report, or may accept one through foreign law enforcement or other administrative or law enforcement agency.

Reports shall be filed in person, by email, by telephone or by fax or any other communication medium available.

Immediately, State Police shall:

i. Enter the child as a missing child into the federal NCIC;

ii. Notify the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC); and

iii. Notify the State designated repository (see 3. above).

5. Criminal Aspects

Outgoing cases: after a 30-day grace period for the voluntary return of the child, the removal/retention shall be deemed a criminal offense.

Incoming cases: within 30 days of abduction to the Commonwealth of Virginia, the child shall be voluntarily returned. Failure to return shall be a criminal offense. Further removal of the child out of state shall be an additional criminal offense (to tackle state-hopping behavior).

6. Freezing & Liquidating Property & Assets of Abductors and Accomplices

The cost of recovering children is enormous; frequently running to hundreds of thousands of dollars for both resident and alien left-behind parents. The assets of abductors and those who render assistance and succor shall be liable to be immediately frozen upon reporting to State Police. If, after 30 days, the child is not returned, those assets are to be considered forfeit and may be liquidated to provide the left-behind parent with the funds necessary to mount recovery of their child.

US Supreme Court Update

2010-11-30T15:04:00.003Z

I received word yesterday that the petition for certiorari will be considered on December 10th.

A positive outcome means it will then be passed up to the Supreme Court justices to make a decision on issuing the writ - if it clears these hurdles we will have a hearing.

I anticipate a decision on certiorari to be issued January 2011.

Hindle-v-Fuith US Supreme Court - 10-479 - On the Docket

2010-10-12T21:34:00.002+01:00

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-479.htm

The first hurdle to Emily's case being heard by the US Supreme Court has been met and passed.

The case is now on the docket!

Thank you everyone for your encouragement and support.

Karl :)

Hindle-v-Fuith: Writ of Certiorari to the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS)

2010-10-10T00:39:00.005+01:00

No.

In The

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

KARL ERNEST HINDLE,

Petitioner,

Vs.

SHEILA KAY FUITH,

Respondent.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari To

The Supreme Court of the State of Florida

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Karl E. Hindle,

Pro Se Petitioner,

Questions Presented

1. Whether the conduct of the courts of the State of Florida hearing this issue have so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power in that a child ordered by the British Supreme Court under an international treaty binding on the United States, to receive medical treatment for an eye condition, has been ignored by the Floridian courts resulting in permanent blindness for the child.

2. Whether upon accepting a child has been internationally abducted to the U.S., can the courts of the State of Florida seize jurisdiction over the matter on the basis no other state in the United States has jurisdiction, despite the constant and continuous objection of the petitioner that England is the proper forum, and does this seizure of jurisdiction constitute a violation of the father and/or child’s rights to due process.

3. Whether a fraudulent application filed under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) filed by the mother and a U.S. Department of State official, with the British Government, falsely claiming jurisdiction under that Convention lay in Florida, was an international child abduction under color of law, a further violation of the father and/or child’s Constitutional right to Due Process, and/or a violation of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child regarding “illicit removals”.

Index

Questions Presented iii
Index vi
Citations ix
Opinions Below xii
Basis for Jurisdiction xiii
Constitutional Provisions Involved xiv
International Treaties Involved xv
Statement of Case 1
A. Procedural History 1
B. Facts Presented at Trial 10
a. Abduction from the United 10 Kingdom
b. Blindness 16
c. Pedophile/Unlawful Adoption 18
d. Abduction from the State of 19 Florida & Subsequent Concealment of the Child by the Mother and Barbara Greig of the U.S. Department of State
e. Father’s Arrest and barring 21 from the U.S. by Ms Greig to conceal international abduction under color of law
Reasons for Granting the Writ 22
A. National and International Importance 22
B. Uniformity of Treatment by U.S. 30 Courts Hearing Cases Upon a Return Order
Conclusion 35
Certificate of Compliance 36
Appendix 1: Copy of order of the High Court, London, U.K. (British Supreme Court).
Appendix 2: Copy of the order of the Supreme Court of the State of Florida.
Appendix 3: Copy of the order and opinion of the Fifth District Court of Appeal, Daytona, Florida.
Appendix 4: Copy of the final order of the Volusia County Court, 7th Judicial District, DeLand, Florida.
Appendix 5: Missing and Endangered poster for Emily Rose Hindle.
Appendix 6: Wisconsin Sex Offender’s Register entry for Leslie Merriam.
Appendix 7: Copy of U.S. Department of Homeland Security report on father’s arrest.
Appendix 8: Copy of medical report of Dr. Robert Cordero of Deland, Florida regarding child’s blindness.
Appendix 9: Copy of medical report from British hospital on child’s medical condition and treatment.
Appendix 10: Extract of deposition of Terri Jacobson regarding conversations with Barbara Greig of the Central Authority, U.S. Department of State.
Appendix 11: Extract of deposition of Robert Ozier regarding efforts to change child’s identity through the U.S. Department of State to evade detection when the child was missing and endangered.

Citations

Karl Hindle-v-Sheila Kay Fuith, 2 In Re ERH (A Minor) FD03P02163 Before the British High Court, London, UK
Karl Ernest Hindle-v-Sheila Kay Fuith 3
Florida Supreme Court (SC10-982)
Karl Ernest Hindle-v-Sheila Kay Fuith 5,10 Florida 5th DCA (5D08-3850)
Karl Ernest Hindle-v-Sheila Kay Fuith 3
Volusia County Court 7th Judicial Circuit
(2003-12692 FMDL)
Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F. 3d 153, n. 8 (2nd Cir. 2001) 3
Duquette v. Tahan, 600 A.2d 472 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991) 12
Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 860 (9th Cir. 2002) 16
T.B. v. Department of Children & Families 718 So.2d 397 7
Van de Sande v. Van de Sande, 431 F.3d 567, 570 (7th Cir. 2005) 32
Vagenas v. Continental Gin Company, 988 F.2d 104 (11th Cir. 1993) 7,10
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution xiv,6
Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, s1 xiv,7
The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980)
• Article 1 xv,14
• Article 3 15
• Article 7 xvi
• Article 13(b) xviii,31
• Article 19 xix,15,30
• Article 21 xx
• Article 31 xx,6
Article 9 of The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990) xxi,6
18 U28 U.S.C. 1257(a) xii
28 U.S.C. § 242 11,12
International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11601 13,22
42 U.S.C. s.11601 (a) (1), (2) 22
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act (1997)
• Section 105. International Applications xxiii
• Section 201. Initial Child-Custody Jurisdiction xxiv
House Resolution 1326 26

Opinions Below

The order of the British Supreme Court sending the child to the State of Florida, including an order for medical treatment for the child’s eye condition is reproduced as appendix 1.
The order denying hearing by the Supreme Court of the State of Florida is reproduced as appendix 2.
The opinion and judgment of the Fifth District Court of Appeals of the State of Florida is reproduced as appendix 3.
The final order of the Volusia County Court, 7th Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida is reproduced as appendix 4.

Basis for Jurisdiction

The orders of the Florida State courts, entered July 12, 2010 by the Supreme Court of Florida denying review of the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s judgment of April 23, 2010 (claiming jurisdiction on the basis of no other state of the United States holding jurisdiction) and the court of first instance, entered on October 6th, 2008 (claiming jurisdiction based upon residency).
The petitioner seeks review of the judgment of these courts, including the judgment by the highest State court in which a decision could be had and invokes this Honorable Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1257(a).

Constitutional Provisions Involved

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

“All person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..”

Faith and Credit Clause of Art. IV, § 1

Section 1.
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
International Treaties Involved

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) - herein referred to as the “Hague Convention”.

Article 1

“The objects of the present Convention are -
a) to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State; and
b) to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States.”

Article 7

“Central Authorities shall co-operate with each other and promote co-operation amongst the competent authorities in their respective States to secure the prompt return of children and to achieve the other objects of this Convention.
In particular, either directly or through any intermediary, they shall take all appropriate measures -
a) to discover the whereabouts of a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained;
b) to prevent further harm to the child or prejudice to interested parties by taking or causing to be taken provisional measures;
c) to secure the voluntary return of the child or to bring about an amicable resolution of the issues;
d) to exchange, where desirable, information relating to the social background of the child;
e) to provide information of a general character as to the law of their State in connection with the application of the Convention;
f) to initiate or facilitate the institution of judicial or administrative proceedings with a view to obtaining the return of the child and, in a proper case, to make arrangements for organising or securing the effective exercise of rights of access;
g) where the circumstances so require, to provide or facilitate the provision of legal aid and advice, including the participation of legal counsel and advisers;
h) to provide such administrative arrangements as may be necessary and appropriate to secure the safe return of the child;
i) to keep each other informed with respect to the operation of this Convention and, as far as possible, to eliminate any obstacles to its application.”

Article 13

Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that -
a) the person, institution or other body having the care of the person of the child was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; or
b) there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.
The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.
In considering the circumstances referred to in this Article, the judicial and administrative authorities shall take into account the information relating to the social background of the child provided by the Central Authority or other competent authority of the child's habitual residence.

Article 19

“A decision under this Convention concerning the return of the child shall not be taken to be a determination on the merits of any custody issue.”

Article 21 (Extract)

“The Central Authorities are bound by the obligations of co-operation which are set forth in Article 7 to promote the peaceful enjoyment of access rights and the fulfilment of any conditions to which the exercise of those rights may be subject. The Central Authorities shall take steps to remove, as far as possible, all obstacles to the exercise of such rights.”

Article 31

In relation to a State which in matters of custody of children has two or more systems of law applicable in different territorial units -
a) any reference to habitual residence in that State shall be construed as referring to habitual residence in a territorial unit of that State;
b) any reference to the law of the State of habitual residence shall be construed as referring to the law of the territorial unit in that State where the child habitually resides.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990)
– herein referred to as the “UN Convention”.

Article 9

“1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.
2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.
3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests.
4. Where such separation results from any action initiated by a State Party, such as the detention, imprisonment, exile, deportation or death (including death arising from any cause while the person is in the custody of the State) of one or both parents or of the child, that State Party shall, upon request, provide the parents, the child or, if appropriate, another member of the family with the essential information concerning the whereabouts of the absent member(s) of the family unless the provision of the information would be detrimental to the well-being of the child. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall of itself entail no adverse consequences for the person(s) concerned.”

Federal Statutes Involved

Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (1997)

SECTION 105. INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION OF [ACT].

(a) A court of this State shall treat a foreign country as if it were a State of the United States for the purpose of applying [Articles] 1 and 2.

(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), a child-custody determination made in a foreign country under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards of this [Act] must be recognized and enforced under [Article] 3.

SECTION 201. INITIAL CHILD-CUSTODY JURISDICTION.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in Section 204, a court of this State has jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination only if:

(1) this State is the home State of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home State of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this State but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this State;

(2) a court of another State does not have jurisdiction under paragraph (1), or a court of the home State of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this State is the more appropriate forum under Section 207 or 208, and:

(A) the child and the child's parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this State other than mere physical presence; and

(B) substantial evidence is available in this State concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships;

(3) all courts having jurisdiction under paragraph (1) or (2) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this State is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under Section 207 or 208; or

(4) no court of any other State would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in paragraph (1), (2), or (3).

(b) Subsection (a) is the exclusive jurisdictional basis for making a child-custody determination by a court of this State.

(c) Physical presence of, or personal jurisdiction over, a party or a child is not necessary or sufficient to make a child-custody determination.

Statement of Case

A. Procedural History

After the child, Emily Rose Hindle, was unilaterally removed from the U.K. to the U.S. by the mother in February 2003, the father attempted to seek relief in the Minnesota courts in March 2003, but was denied due to lack of jurisdiction in the United States.

Subsequently, he sought relief before the Wisconsin courts in April 2003 but was denied due to lack of jurisdiction in the United States.

On June 6th 2003, the father petitioned Chelmsford County Court, Essex, England (where the child had been born and lived until her unilateral removal to the United States). That court seized jurisdiction and issued the father with parental responsibility order on August 14, 2003.

The child was voluntarily returned to the U.K. on September 19, 2003 and placed into the father’s care by British police. The father returned to the English court for a permanent residency order on September 24, 2003, however these proceedings were stayed by the British High Court (the British Supreme Court).

The British Supreme Court received an application on September 24, 2003 under the Hague Convention filed by Barbara J. Greig, a U.S. Department of State official, on behalf of the mother claiming the State of Florida held jurisdiction on the basis of her six month’s residency in that state.

On October 3, 2003 the British Supreme Court “returned” the child to the State of Florida on the basis of that application, and also vacated the father’s English orders based on lack of jurisdiction as Florida held it. The Hague Convention order includes a series of orders, known as “undertakings”, which included that the child was to receive medical treatment “forthwith” for her eye condition, upon arrival and that proceedings were to be filed in the State of Florida to determine the child’s future. Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F. 3d 153, n. 8 (2nd Cir. 2001), explains the term "undertaking".

On November 10, 2003 the father filed in Volusia County Court, 7th Judicial Circuit, Florida for primary residency and other issues.

On April 20, 2004 the court accepted a certified copy of the foreign order of the British Supreme Court and both mother and father’s attorneys argued there was no jurisdiction in the State of Florida based on mother’s lack of residency in the state.

It transpired that far from residing for six months or more in Florida, as she and the U.S. Government’s Barbara Greig claimed to the British Supreme Court, residency had been approximately six weeks if at all.

Nevertheless, the Lower Court ignored the lack of jurisdiction and continued proceedings, which were then substantially delayed by the arrest and deportation of the father at the request of Barbara Greig of the U.S. Department of State, his subsequent life-time ban from travel to the U.S. and when overcome, the further abduction of the child out of state and further concealment of the child by the mother and Ms. Greig in 2005.

The father was awarded a temporary sole custody order on October 26, 2005.

The child was located and returned to Florida in December 2006; however the father had again to depart the country due to visa restrictions placed upon him by the U.S. Department of State.

He was subsequently denied entry to the U.S. until May 2008 again at the behest of the Ms Greig and others at the Office of Childrens Issues, the U.S. Central Authority.

Final judgment was issued on October 6, 2008 after a hearing on May 23, 2008. The Lower Court claimed jurisdiction on basis of mother’s six month residency in the State prior to filing of the action and stated, “In this County, we’re provincials. We don’t do the Hague Convention.”

No enforcement of the British Supreme Court order for medical treatment for the child’s blindness is provided at any time during proceedings or in the final judgment of the Lower Court, despite the father’s continuous efforts.

Father appeals to Fifth District Court of Appeal on a timely basis on November 7, 2008. In his briefs filed with that Court, the father argued lack of jurisdiction of the Florida court based on six month residency not being satisfied and the fraudulent claim of the mother and before the British Supreme Court that Florida held jurisdiction (cf art 31)..

The father further argued that his and/or the child’s 14th Amendment rights had been violated by the arbitrary seizure of jurisdiction by the Lower Court and that the removal of the child from the U.K. on both occasions constituted “wrongful removal” for the purposes of the Hague Convention, an “illicit removal” for the purposes of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and such seizure of jurisdiction was also not in conformity with the U.C.C.J.A. or U.C.C.J.E.A. as subsequently enacted, i.e. to prevent forum shopping and the wrongful removal and retention of children across jurisdictional borders.

The father also argued that the lower court had not held fair hearings, nor had it acted in a timely fashion as required under Florida judicial standards nor the Hague Convention for speedy resolution of issues, having taken almost 5 years to issue a final judgment.

In addition, the father argued that comity should have been granted for the British Supreme Court order for the child to receive medical treatment for her blindness (Vagenas v. Continental Gin Company, 988 F.2d 104 (11th Cir. 1993)- treaty between United States and Greece elevated foreign judgment to status of sister state judgment). Further, that the mother allowing the child to go blind precluded an award of custody based on T.B. v. Department of Children & Families 718 So.2d 397. Other matters were argued including child support and visitation costs.

The Appellate court issued a judgment and opinion on April 23, 2010 reversing in part and affirming in part. The Appellate court agreed that the child had been abducted from the U.K. by the mother (referring to the mother’s “unilateral removal” from the U.K., this being the language of the U.C.C.J.E.A. for ‘child abduction’), but then proceeded to claim jurisdiction on the basis no other state in the United States held it, whilst ignoring the fraud on the British Supreme Court which resulted in the child physical presence in Florida. The father also claimed that his and/or the child’s due process rights had been violated as a consequence.

The Appellate court agreed to review the child support and visitation cost issues and reversed, but refused to review any other matter, including the failure to enforce the British Supreme Court order for medical treatment for the child’s blindness.

The father issued a timely appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Florida on May 25, 2010 based on the conflict of the Lower Court’s decision with the British Supreme Court order for medical treatment for the child’s blindness (lack of comity), lack of jurisdiction and violation of his and the child’s rights to due process.

On June 24, 2010 that Honorable Court struck the British Supreme Court order from the record.

Subsequently, that Honorable Court refused review on July 12, 2010.

The father/petitioner subsequently files a timely application for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States.

B. Facts Presented at Trial

Abduction from the United Kingdom

The petitioner reproduces the opinion issued by the Fifth District Court of Appeal:
“The child was born in the United Kingdom where the father resides and removed to Florida by the mother’s unilateral decision.” (p.5, para.2, line 3).

“Unilateral removal” is the language of the U.C.C.J.A. for child abduction (see sec. 1(a)(5)).
The child resided with her father and mother from birth until the child’s “other unilateral removal” in February 2003 in England which is elevated to the status of “Sister State” in this instance. See Vagenas v. Continental Gin Company, 988 F.2d 104 (11th Cir. 1993) (treaty between United States and Greece elevated foreign judgment to status of sister state judgment).

The mother and officials of the U.S. Department of State did cause an “other unilateral removal” of the child from England to the United States in February 2003 without the knowledge or consent of the father to gain sole physical custody, and deny the rights of the child to her father, and any rights the father may have or subsequently acquire, as a color of law fraud to deprive the father and child of their rights (see 18 U.S.C. § 242).

The child was subsequently sent to the State of Florida after representations by the mother to the British High Court and a Hague Convention application filed by the U.S. Government (Barbara Greig) claimed the child was subject to the jurisdiction of the State of Florida which was clearly false. This was an additional fraud on the part of the mother and Barbara Grieg of the U.S. Department of State who filed the Hague Convention application to get the child sent to the State of Florida in an international child abduction under color of law (again 18 U.S.C. § 242).
In 1988, the United States entered the Convention, the text of which can be found in Duquette v. Tahan, 600 A.2d 472 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991). The objects of the Convention are to "secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State, and to ensure that the rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in other Contracting States." The father clearly had rights of custody for the purposes of the Hague Convention due to his parental responsibility order issued by Judge Hallett, Chelmsford County Court in England on August 14th 2003 and which was quashed by the British High Court due to the fraudulent claim that the State of Florida held jurisdiction.

Congress implemented the treaty in 1988 by enacting the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, often referred to as ICARA. See 42 U.S.C. § 11601 et seq. ICARA vests concurrent jurisdiction over claims brought under the Convention in the United States District Courts and in the courts of the states.

Congress has found that the international abduction or wrongful retention of children is harmful to their well-being and that persons should not be permitted to obtain custody of children by virtue of their wrongful removal or retention. 42 U.S.C. §11601 (a) (1), (2).

Article 1 of the Hague Convention states the removal of a child is considered wrongful if it is "in breach of rights of custody . . . under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal . . . ."

The father had a parental responsibility order issued by the English court which seized the matter in June 2003 and which was quashed by the High Court as a consequence of the fraudulent representations on her residency in Florida by the mother and Barbara Greig of the U.S. Department of State.

The mother attempted to wrongly domesticate the Hague Convention order as a custody order in the State of Florida on April 13th 2004 and stated her address history for the prior five years which clearly demonstrates a lack of residency in any U.S. State or Florida and clearly identifies England as the “home state”. According to that declaration, the mother had been living in the State of Florida since August 2003 i.e. only one month at the time of filing the Hague Convention application (September 2003) and only 3 months prior to the father filing the case at issue in November 2003. (Article 19 of the Hague Convention states that “A decision under this Convention concerning the return of the child shall not be taken to be a determination on the merits of any custody issue.)

The Hague Convention and UCCJA (supplanted by the UCCJEA) specifically attempt to remove the creation of safe harbors for abductors and jurisdiction shoppers which has been allowed to fail in the case at issue. Article 3 of the Hague Convention seeks to deter parental abductions by eliminating the primary motivation for abductions, which is to obtain an advantage in custody proceedings by commencing them in another country. Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 860 (9th Cir. 2002). In this instance, the other country is the United States.

Blindness

The father presented to the Lower Court on April 20th, 2003 and at final hearing on May 28th, 2008, the British Supreme Court order issued October 3rd, 2003 for the child’s medical treatment “forthwith” in Florida, and which was continuously referred to by the father throughout the protracted litigation of this matter.

The father presented a British eye hospital medical report (a report of Broomfield Eye Clinic, Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford, UK) and American medical eye doctor (Dr. Robert Cordero of DeLand, Florida), on the child’s medical condition and need for medical treatment, including what that treatment consisted of and the prognosis for continued lack of treatment, i.e. blindness. This was presented at trial, however the Lower Court refused to accept any evidence from the father during the protracted proceedings despite ordering an independent medical examination on January 13, 2006 which further concluded the child was treatable (this was performed by Dr. Robert Cordero above).

The father presented 2 depositions of the mother, the child’s prospective “adoptive” mother, Shannon Merriam together with the child’s prospective “adoptive” grandfather, Leslie Merriam, on the need for medical treatment for the child at final trial.

The Lower Court excluded all the above evidence from the record after trial and prior to judgment.

The Appellate Court granted the father’s motion to supplement the record with this evidence on April 13, 2009 then refused to review it.

The Supreme Court of Florida refused review as stated above.

Pedophile/Adoption

At trial, the father submitted the depositions of Leslie Merriam, a convicted pedophile who testified to the proposed “adoption” of the child in March/April 2003 by the mother to his son and daughter-in-law, Shannon Merriam. A deposition from Shannon Merriam affirming the efforts to adopt the child and her physical placement with herself and her husband was also submitted.

The entry of Leslie Merriam in the Wisconsin Sex Offenders Registry was also submitted.
The Lower Court excluded all this evidence after trial and before judgment.

The Appellate Court granted the father’s motion to supplement the record with this evidence on April 13, 2009, while the Supreme Court of Florida refused review as stated above.

Abduction from Florida and Subsequent Concealment of the Child by the Mother and Barbara Greig of the U.S. Department of State

The depositions of Terri Jacobson (owner of the home where the mother and child hid in Kansas), together with that of Robert Ozier (the mother’s cohabitating boyfriend in Kansas) were submitted at trial on May 28, 2010.

Both witnesses testified to the mother’s contact with the U.S. Department of State, and efforts involving that agency to change the child’s identity to evade detection as well to keep the petitioner out of the country. Ms Jacobson specifically testified to speaking with Barbara Greig at least once, wherein Ms Jacobson was advised by Ms Greig that everything “was on the up and up”, that no laws were being broken and that the allegations against the petitioner of sexual abuse of his children, domestic violence and so forth, were true.

At this time, the petitioner had legal custody of the child, who was classified as Missing & Endangered by the authorities.

These depositions were submitted at trial on May 28, 2010, but excluded by the Lower Court after trial and before judgment.

The Appellate Court granted the petitioner’s motion to supplement the record with them on April 13, 2009, but then subsequently refused to review, while the Florida Supreme Court refused review as stated above.

Father’s arrest and barring from the United States by mother and Barbara J Greig to conceal an international child abduction under color of law

Letters from the mother’s attorney of record to Ms. Greig and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, requesting variously denial of visas to travel to the U.S.; refusal of entry to the U.S.; claiming he was a threat to the mother and his child (after the mother had lost a domestic violence injunction application and was admonished by the Lower Court for her behavior) were submitted at trial on May 28, 2010.

A fax from Ms. Greig to the arresting agents of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on the day of the petitioner’s arrest was also submitted.

Reasons for Granting the Writ

National & International Importance

The U.S. Department of State and the Congressional Tom Lantos Commission on Human Rights have both stated that there are several thousand American children abducted and retained overseas. Equally, similar numbers are abducted to the United States. Additionally, significant numbers of children are returned to the United States by Hague Convention partners complying with the Convention.

At the Congressional Tom Lantos Commission on Human Rights, Ernie Allen, President of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children testified on December 2, 2009 regarding serious improvement steps he felt should be taken to encourage returns of abducted children to the United States:

“Fourth, we should educate all judges – both in the U.S. and internationally - about their responsibilities under the Hague Convention. This training should focus on how swift resolution of these cases best serves the child victims.”
And

“Fifth, we can play an important role in encouraging other countries to return abducted American children by reciprocating when their children are abducted into the United States. As we seek to find the best ways to resolve abductions involving American children who are taken abroad, we must be equally vigilant in resolving cases in which children are abducted from another country and brought into the United States. To better fulfill this responsibility, we should educate U.S. state and local law enforcement about the issue of international child abduction and the obligations of the United States under the Hague Convention.”

The Hague Convention relies on trust between signatory partners. Trust that the Convention aims will be respected and met by participants and most of all, that the children subjected to it will be protected.

U.S. Government officials must not involve themselves in assisting in the abduction and concealment of children to the United States, nor in partisan activities designed not to protect the children, but to thwart the aims of international and domestic law and then to protect themselves from discovery.

The British Supreme Court justice, Sir Justice Johnson stated, “It is inconceivable to me that an American court will not enforce the order for medical treatment.”

The inconceivable has been conceived in the Floridian courts and while the petitioner is justifiably angry at the inordinate delay in proceedings, such is not the sole fault of the Florida legal process, but also that of the arbitrary, unlawful and prejudicial involvement of Barbara Greig and others of the U.S. Department of State.

Such has been the impact of the unfolding evidence of this matter that questions were tabled in the British Parliament and the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office dispatched a senior diplomat to Washington D.C. to seek assurances from the U.S. Department of State Assistant Secretary of State Maura Harty.

It takes enormous amounts of political, legislative and diplomatic effort to encourage countries, such as Japan, to accede to the Convention. In Japan’s case, H.R.1326 condemning Japan for non-accession was recently passed by the House; however Japan and many other countries have still not signed the Convention.

Recently, the Sean Goldman case achieved national and international significance. Sean was abducted and retained in Brazil (a Hague Convention signatory) from his custodial father, David Goldman of New Jersey. A constant theme of the Brazilian family retaining Sean was that the child would be better protected in Brazil; that fairer court proceedings would take place in Brazil; that American courts would be biased against the Brazilian family and act only in favor of the American father’s interests and much more. After several years, the vigorous efforts of Congressman Christopher Smith and Congress, and the monumental effort of the father, David Goldman and thousands of supporters worldwide, did Sean finally come home for Christmas 2009.

Such xenophobic claims are commonplace for American parents traveling overseas in their efforts to recover their children and the example of this case reinforces those impressions. It is imperative that the United States demonstrates a continuous example of fairness towards foreign parents, and especially, that the children who are entrusted to its courts are protected in fact. Building on the reputation the U.S. has for disregarding the Hague Convention when it is “inconvenient” (whether true or not), does a great disservice to children abducted overseas, to children abducted to the U.S., or entrusted to it under the Hague Convention, not to mention all of the parents involved.

Many countries cite concerns over protection of the child, and fair treatment of their own citizen parent in the United States if the treaty is signed or if a child is sent to the United States.
This case demonstrates those concerns are justified, i.e. a U.S. government official assisting in the removal of a child from her proper home state and concealing her in the U.S.; allowing a child to become permanently blinded for the sake of simple, basic medical treatment; allowing the child to be endangered by being placed up for unlawful sale/adoption and into the care and contact of a convicted pedophile, denying a relationship between the child and her foreign parent; undue delay in proceedings; orchestration of arrest and deportation of the foreign parent; obstructing access to the U.S. courts by manipulating visa issuance; misuse of the criminal justice, child protection and domestic violence systems to threaten and intimidate the foreign parent and obstruct the litigation in the child’s best interests.

To date, this child has only been allowed to see her father on one occasion in the last four years due to the conduct of the mother, the U.S. Government and the State of Florida, whose courts appear impotent and incapable of substantive action to protect the child and uphold the law.

Uniformity of Treatment by U.S. Courts hearing Cases Upon a Return Order

When a child is “returned” to the United States under the Hague Convention, this is not the end of the matter, but rather the beginning. The Hague Convention makes no distinction as to which of the two parents is more fit; a ruling under the Hague Convention is specifically not a determination of parental fitness (see art.19 Hague Convention).

Serious issues may remain, and indeed, the parent who successfully initiates a Hague Convention action may, in fact, be unfit as a parent and the child placed at substantial, but not ‘grave and intolerable risk” (cf, Art 13(b) Hague Convention).

When a child is returned to their country of habitual residence, proceedings should be allowed to take place speedily, without “artificial” interference, but with proper deference to the purpose of the Hague Convention, to the trust implicitly rendered in a return order and the concerns for the protection of the children involved.

Five years to obtain a final order is shameful and egregious. Ignoring a child’s serious medical condition to the point of blindness is disgusting, barbaric and uncivilized.

An order for medical treatment has been ignored resulting in a child’s blindness while presiding judge, Judge John V. Doyle, claimed, “In this County, we’re provincials. We don’t do the Hague Convention,” and then excluded all the medical evidence which subsequent state courts refused to review. His Honor is thankfully no longer in office having been compelled to resign after suspension from hearing certain civil matters, and amidst ongoing controversy over his conduct. However, this case is beyond one judge or one court.

There are few cases on the subject of “undertakings” and those that are extant deal with undertakings when ordering a child to a foreign Hague Convention signatory. There appear to be none on undertakings upon a return order to the United States being issued by a foreign court.
However, in Van de Sande v. Van de Sande, 431 F.3d 567, 570 (7th Cir. 2005) where the Court stated, "the rendering court [can] satisfy itself that the children will in fact, and not just in legal theory, be protected if returned to their abuser's custody," the court should refuse to grant the Hague petition, leads to a conclusion that the child should not have been returned to the United States by the British Supreme Court because she has “in fact” been seriously and permanently harmed, i.e. blinded (even assuming jurisdiction had rightfully vested in Florida).

This is not a reputation American courts and authorities should risk acquiring, for it will, if not already, adversely impact the successful return to America of hundreds of internationally abducted children.

I end this with the words of Mr Ernie Allen, President of the NCMEC in his December 2, 2009 testimony before the Congressional Tom Lantos Commission on Human Rights”

“It is critical that the United States continue to improve our response to international child abduction so that we are able to serve as a model for other countries. We are encouraged by the Department of State’s improvements to build capacity to handle these cases. The United States plays an important role in the world community. Once we ensure that our own house is in order – that our law enforcement officers and judges consistently apply the policies and best practices of the Hague Convention – we can stand on the world stage and bring others to the table for the benefit of all children.”

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the writ should be granted and the case set down for argument.

Respectfully submitted,

Karl Hindle
Pro se petitioner,

I Need You! Filing in the US Supreme Court for Emily Rose

2010-07-14T21:30:00.010+01:00

Below is an email I sent out today to people on my contact list asking for help - after exhausting the legal process in Florida, I am now free to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I need all the help I can get - if you are willing to help me please email me at

karl4work@gmail.com

I'd appreciate you sending this out to your email contacts, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, LinkedIn and other social media connections too, because someone out there knows someone who can make a real difference to getting some justice for my little girl and my family.

No-one has the right to abduct a child from one country to another - not even US government officials hiding behind false claims of domestic violence or their positions of power and influence.

Allowing a child to go blind is disgusting - selling a child as part of an adoption arrangement is criminal - giving a child to a pedophile is unspeakable but US government officials and courts ignoring this and much more, is uncivilized and barbaric.

I found Emily after she was taken but finding her has never been the same as being able to protect her.

Thanks everyone - thank you all very, very much.

Karl aka Emily's Dad

Hello Everyone,

I'm mailing this out because as I have gone through the last seven years dealing with the issues concerning my little girl, Emily Rose, I've met and come into contact with some very decent, ordinary human beings which is extraordinary in itself.

Some of you have not heard from me for some time, some only recently, however to have made it onto this list, you made a strong impression on my consciousness.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled yesterday that it would not hear the issues concerning my daughter. Boiling them down in a nutshell, they come to these:

the removal of Emily from her home in the United Kingdom to the United States by her mother and U.S. Department of State officials - I'll call it what it is, international child kidnapping;
the refusal to comply with international law, which demands that children shall not be "illicitly removed" across international borders nor be denied the right to have hearings to determine their future take place in their home state, or "state of habitual residence", and
especially, in specific terms for Emily, the total and absolute disregard of an order from the British Supreme Court issued under the Hague Convention, (supported by 9 British and US eye doctors that Emily was treatable) for Emily to receive medical treatment to stop her from becoming blinded in one of her eyes (Emily is now permanently blinded in her right eye).

Many of you know there are several other issues too, but this is not a "brief".

I've made a decision to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but, and it is big but, I am not an attorney and desperately need a competent one. I also freely admit that I am not "cuddly" in a PR sense and have practically, completely failed to get the story on what has happened, and continues to happen with Emily, into the public domain (which I believe is where relief ultimately will be found).

There are two things I am in serious need of:

Legal resources and assistance; and
Practical support in driving media and political attention.

If you can't help directly, you may know someone who can - many of you have been, and are going through, exactly the same problems I am dealing with, with your children both in and outside of the U.S.

I'd like all the help you can give because while some of you may think I am thick-headed, I am humble enough to understand and appreciate that this is a far bigger challenge than I can undertake on my own.

Sincerely,

Karl Hindle

FL Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Emily's Case

2010-07-13T21:13:00.004+01:00

I just received news that the Supreme Court of Florida has refused to hear Emily's case, particularly the lack of jurisdiction in Florida, the Hague Convention violations but, most importantly, the neglect of little Emily in allowing her to become permanently blinded.

I have now exhausted the legal process in Florida, but look on the bright side - I have finished the appeals process in Florida and now am free to get the issues to Federal court at long last!

The extract giving the FL Supreme Court's decision is below:

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court on jurisdictional briefs and portions of the record deemed necessary to reflect jurisdiction under Article V, Section 3(b), Florida Constitution, and the Court having determined that it should decline to accept jurisdiction, it is ordered that the petition for review is denied. No motion for rehearing will be entertained by the Court. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.330(d)(2).

Improving Compliance with the Hague Convention

2010-06-20T23:32:00.004+01:00

We All Have Lessons to Learn

As pressure continues to be applied to Japan to accede to the Hague Convention with the forthcoming economic summits (G7 & G20), perhaps now is an appropriate time to consider how we can improve international compliance with the primary, international child abduction treaty.

It is not only Japan which is flagged a "black hole", by the supporters of BACHome - the group of parents and supporters dealing with the non-existent framework which allows non-custodial parents to have access to their children in Japan, never mind petition for the return of their abducted children. Other countries should be under the spotlight for non-compliance and it is clear from the latest release of UK and US figures that compliance is observed more in the breach.

Not only is international child abduction a global scourge, non-compliance is also a global problem and found in many signatories to the treaty.

For parents with children in Japan, this is bad news unless they can achieve a major coup and bring Japan into the Hague Convention fold AND have a compliant Japan to boot. Unless compliance is observed by Japan, the majority of parents (if not all) will simply find themselves in the same position as those with children abducted to Mexico - all the legal paper and processes in place, but no substantive relief to be had, only an expensive road to nowhere.

Gaining International Compliance: Carrot & Stick?

Congressman Chris Smith (D-NJ) has sponsored H.R. 3240, a piece of US federal legislation which has the potential for achieving a sea-shift in the American approach to international child abduction. Of all the various pieces of legislation which are on the horizon in this arena, this has the greatest potential for positive impact on compliance...for American Left-Behind Parents (LBP's).

It MAY have a positive impact for LBP's coming to the US to recover their children (note that "may").

H.R. 3240 introduces a sliding scale of sanctions (not particularly onerous but sanctions nevertheless) and ties performance in Hague Convention proceedings to the Department of State, who will now have to report treaty partner compliance in something approaching plain English. There is also provision for an Ambassador at Large to represent parent's interests within the Department of State.

H.R.3240 is not yet law, but hopefully it will impact on one of the Department of State's great works of fiction - the Annual Compliance Report. The latest report was published earlier this month and it has made many readers deeply unhappy, not least for how "non-compliant" and "patterns of non-compliance" status has been awarded to various countries, especially Mexico with whom the U.S. has the largest numbers of abduction cases.

In this regard, H.R.3240 may be viewed as a "stick", not only for treaty partners but also for the much-maligned, Department of State (justifiably maligned in the opinion of this writer and many other LBP's).

I'm loathe to view international diplomatic and legal relations in Trumanesque terms, particularly when children are involved, however as the Sean Goldman case ably demonstrated, it was the economic stick of a multi-billion dollar trade deal getting held up that pushed the Brazilian jurisdiction over the edge into complying with returning that lucky young man to his rightful father in New Jersey.

If this is part of the "stick" approach, where is the carrot?

Surely the carrot must be a fair system to protect all of our children from the "scourge" of international child abduction.

How Do We Improve International Compliance?

Creating and using a stick is relatively simple to do, but exercising sanctions requires a responsible and moral vantage point to operate from.

No country has a monopoly on compliance with the Hague Convention - not the UK (which almost all recognize has a "good" record) and certainly not the United States.

For American readers, I should be clear here - I am British and dealing with my child taken to America - I am not a critic of Uncle Sam in respect of its dealings with myself and more importantly, my little girl, I am a bitter, vociferous and fierce critic of U.S. compliance and practice generally.

That said, where do we go from here? Do we sit in a corner and whine about our respective, personal situations and how our children are being abused in such-and-such a country?

Extraordinary times such as those LBP's experience require an exceptional response.

It is natural and understandable for there to be anger and rage, frustration and deep misery, but in 7 years I have not seen anger prevail in recovering any child. LBP's may feel and experience anger for years after their children are abducted, but what motivates them in the final analysis is love for their children, not anger against the abductor or the country acting as a safe-haven. The loving bond between parent and child has to be one of the most powerful forces on earth and is extraordinary in every sense of the word.

An equally extraordinary approach should be adopted in terms of improving international compliance with the Hague Convention.

One Solution Suggestion

As many U.S. LBP's recognized with the Tom Lantos Human Rights Congressional hearings held in Washington D.C. earlier this year; the names and faces have changed, but the problems being testified too are the same as those of parents going all the way back to the Seventies.

There has been a lot of marketing and PR hype about, "What State is doing now about international child abduction", but very little of substance. If anything, this recognition is a good thing, though it must be a very bitter pill for American LBP's to swallow. This recognition comes in tandem with H.R.3240 and a general raising of public awareness of international child abduction as a general, social issue in terms of the broad problem, not simply focusing on a select few cases.

This recognition is a positive development because by recognizing there is a deficiency, something can be done to deal with it. There is also the issue of how badly many American LBP's are treated by their own government, which ought to raise the question as to how badly are foreign LBP's being treated by the U.S. government (a lot worse).

Broadly, the U.S. blandly considers itself compliant with the Hague Convention, but what evidential basis exists for this assumption is unclear. The Department of State does not compile a report of it's own compliance with the Hague Convention after all. For many American readers, it comes as a surprise, even an insult, that in some quarters the U.S. is not regarded as a paragon of Hague Convention compliance by the rest of the world.

I urge such readers to suspend their disbelief and read this article on US compliance by a US Hague Convention lawyer, Jeremy Morley in New York.

Being insulting is not my game here - I'm trying to make a point.

No-one is perfect, and to gain compliance from partners needs something more than "stick" - ity needs something "extraordinary".

What is needed is a shining example of compliance.

The world simply does not have that example, though some countries do make greater efforts than others and have achieved good results.

But this is an issue where being "good" is simply not good enough.

What we are looking for is near-perfect.

The U.S. does not have an enviable return track-record - around 50% (some 30% of British children abducted to the U.S. are still unresolved from last year and being marked as "resolved" does not mean the children were returned).

The U.S. has reserved on the Hague Convention requirement to provide free legal representation to foreign LBP's coming to the U.S. to recover their children.

There are many issues regarding conduct of U.S. courts in terms of speed and post-return performance in dealing with the issues confronting a child once that child is returned from overseas to the U.S. jurisdiction.

Just as Japan does not recognize international child abduction to Japan as a crime, it is also not a crime to abduct a child to the United States - it is a crime only to abduct a child from America.

I would personally prefer to see the U.K. achieve status of being a virtuous paragon of compliance, but the U.S. doing so would really make a global difference for everyone. The extraordinary solution I propose, and which I truly believe will help every child and LBP, is for the U.S. to strive towards gaining that exemplary status which other countries are encouraged to emulate.

Hague cases should be heard by experienced judges in an expedited fashion with distinct time limits on how long the case can last.

It should be a crime to parentally abduct a child to the United States and not just from it.

LBP's should have their legal fees and ancillary costs paid for.

Return rates of children abducted to the United States should be monitored in exactly the same way as it is for other countries under H.R.3240 - in fact, any monitoring requirement applied by the U.S. to its treaty partners should also be applied to itself.

In a similar fashion, access rights should be monitored and enforced in the U.S. (currently, no Federal court will deal with an access case under the Hague Convention).

There is obviously a lot more too, but the primary point is this - to exert moral authority over the rest of the world, one must first be moral - the U.S. has not been "moral" in this context, but there is absolutely no reason why it should not or cannot be.

I believe many of my American friends already agree with me, and as a "legal alien" in America, Americans are fundamentally fair and that ought to be taken as huge compliment.

The U.S. Department of State is not "moral" in this regard, which is something which needs to be addressed before America can go forward and claim the leadership role which it ought to have done decades ago for all of our children's benefit.

The challenge is to lead by example, to encourage, to cajole, to educate and when that fails, then and only then, whip out the "Big Stick".

Appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida

2010-06-05T15:03:00.005+01:00

Off to the Supremes

This blog is playing catch-up with events in Emily Rose's case, but the skinny is I have appealed to the Supreme Court of Florida on the jurisdiction issue and allowing Emily to go blind without enforcing the British Supreme Court order for her to receive medical treatment.

Yesterday, I filed the first brief - the brief on jurisdiction - which is my effort on why the Supreme Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction ('discretionary' means the court can choose to hear the case or not).

This is the last stop in Florida before Federal court.

The principal issues are:

The Fifth District Court of Appeal has ruled there was no jurisdiction in Florida, or anywhere else in the United States. But, the mother and U.S. Government, in the form of Barbara Greig at the Office of Childrens Issues, Department of State) claimed that it did have jurisdiction when they filed a Hague application for Emily to be "returned" to Florida in 2003.

There is a clear problem here - why did Barbara Greig claim FL held jurisdiction when according to the FL court it did not?

Given Barbara Greig's subsequent behavior - blocking my access to the court, denying visa's to enter the country, ordering my arrest and deportation and helping to hide Emily in KS/MO when she was missing and endangered - I think it is reasonable to conclude Barbara Greig was trying to cover up a fraud she was involved in.

There is of course, the serious issue as to why the FL court and agencies have allowed Emily Rose to go without medical treatment for her blindness, letting the condition become permanent.

For better or worse, Emily Rose's future now rests with these Florida Supreme Court judges:

For the legal eagles amongst you, below is the text of the Brief on Jurisdiction and below is a Statement of the Case and Facts which I have moved be attached to that brief by the Supreme Court - I have learned the hard way that if you don't ask, you definitely will not get.

BRIEF ON JURISDICTION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: SC10-982

KARL E. HINDLE

Petitioner

VS.

SHEILA KAY FUITH, N.K.A.

SHEILA KAY SWINDELL

Respondent

__________________________/

PETITIONER’S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION

On review from an opinion rendered by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Case No. 5D08 - 3850

Karl E. Hindle

Pro Se Petitioner

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS i

TABLE OF CITATIONS ii

PREFACE 1

STATEMENT ON THE CASE AND FACTS 2

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 2

ARGUMENT 3

CONCLUSION 10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 11

CERTIFICATE OF FONT COMPLIANCE 11

APPENDIX 12

Copy of Hague Convention Order of British High Court (Supreme Court)

Copy of Fifth District Court of Appeal Opinion

TABLE OF CITATIONS

14^th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America 2, 5

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 (the Hague Convention) 2, 3, 4

The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (CRC) 2, 3, 8

Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) 3, 7, 8

Florida Statute s. 61.514 2, 3, 5

DeClaire v. Yohanan 453 So.2d 375 2, 3, 4

Cerniglia v. Cerniglia 679 So.2d 1160 3

T.B. v. Department of Children & Families 718 So.2d 397 2, 6

Aguirre 985 So.2d 3, 8

Matajek v. Skrowonska 927 So.2d 981 3, 8

United States v. Throckmorton 98 U.S. 61 (1878) 4

Vagenas v. Continental Gin Company 988 F.2d 104 (11^th Cir 1993) 7

Feder v. Evans-Feder (866 F.Supp. 860) 5

PREFACE

The Petitioner/father, Karl Ernest Hindle, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to invoke its discretionary jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.030(a)(2)(A) (i) and (iv).

The Fifth District’s decision conflicts with the following:

· 14^th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

· The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 (the “Hague Convention”)

· The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (“CRC”)

· International Child Abduction Remedies Act (42 U.S.C. 11601 et seq) (“ICARA”)

· Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”)

· DeClaire v. Yohanan 453 So.2d 375

· Cerniglia v. Cerniglia 679 So.2d 1160

· T.B. v. Department of Children & Families 718 So.2d 397

· Aguirre 985 So.2d

· Matajek v. Skrowonska 927 So.2d 981

· Treaty making authority of the United States Congress

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

The facts of the case are not completely put forth in the opinion of the Fifth District Court of Appeal; the child at issue arrived in Florida as a consequence of a fraudulent Hague Convention application by the mother and Barbara Greig of the U.S. Government which falsely claimed Florida held jurisdiction. Further, the child was ordered to receive medical treatment for a congenital eye defect by the British Supreme Court; however no treatment or enforcement has ensued rendering the child permanently blinded. The petitioner moves separately for an extension in length for the brief and attaches separately with that motion a statement of facts to be addended hereto if so ordered.

ARGUMENT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

1. The Lower Courts exercise of jurisdiction in accordance with s 61.514 is in conflict with the 14^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (Due Process), and not in conformity with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980) (as enacted by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act 42 U.S.C. 11601 et seq) or the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), based upon a fraudulent application under the aforesaid Hague Convention to have the child “returned” to the jurisdiction of the State of Florida when there was no such jurisdiction. The 5^th DCA decision further directly conflicts with DeClaire v Yohanan (453 So.2d 375).

2. The decision of the 5^th DCA directly conflicts with the decision in T.B.-v-Department of Children and Families (718 So.2d 397) in that the child has been allowed no medical treatment for a treatable eye condition rendering her permanently blinded and is directly analogous to the referenced case where said conduct was ground for termination of parental rights but in the case at review, is not grounds for reversing a custody decision.

3. The 5^th DCA ruling opines that there are no errors on the face of the judgment which accordingly restricts their review, however there are substantial errors on the face of the judgment, including the omission of enforcement of medical treatment for the child and the claim that one of the parties had resided in the State for more than 6 months prior to filing. Further, the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s ruling relies on, and yet is in conflict with Aguirre (985 So 2d).

4. The 5^th DCA decision conflicts with Matajek v. Skrowonska (927 So.2d 981) that the trial court abuses its discretion only where no reasonable person would take the view it adopts based upon the evidence before it.

ARGUMENT
1. The Fifth District Court of Appeals ruling which states that jurisdiction can be exercised in Florida in accordance with s 61.514 (as implementing the UCCJEA), creates a dangerous conflict with international law (notably the Hague Convention and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) and directly conflicts with DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 S0.2d 375 (FLA. 1984) and Cerniglia v. Cerniglia, 679 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 1996) because a false claim of the child’s habitual residence vesting in the State of Florida is intrinsic fraud. Yet the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s decision incorrectly holds that as no other state of the United States held jurisdiction, the State of Florida could seize it when clearly there was jurisdiction in the child’s habitual state of England but for a fraud on the British Supreme Court under the Hague Convention.

In DeClaire v. Yohanan 453 So.2d 375 (Fla. 1984) the Florida Supreme Court followed the ruling in the seminal case on fraud, United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61 (1878) wherein the court held, “Where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent…”, the judgment may be set aside. The father has consistently and continuously argued that the trial court and the State of Florida has no jurisdiction to hear the underlying custody issues because of the fraudulent use of the Hague Convention. The mother and Ms Greig of the U.S. Government have sought to deny him access to the court by means of denying his entry into the country, removing his liberty when he legally did so and deporting him, placing him subject to a lifetime ban on travel to the United States in order to delay and deny justice and court ordered access to the child at issue.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal correctly opines (at p.3) that there was no jurisdiction at the time of filing in neither the State of Florida nor any other state of the United States (but ignores the UK). That Honorable Court then proceeds to rule that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in seizing jurisdiction, “…because no court of any other state would have jurisdiction under section 61.514, the Florida trial court had jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination.” p.3 5DCA opinion at issue. This ruling directly conflicts with the father’s (and child’s) 14^th Amendment right to due process under the law, that is, the mother in tandem with the U.S. Government, have engaged in a series of acts to deprive the father and child of their right to have proceedings to determine the child’s future take place in the child’s country of habitual residence, i.e. England. (see Feder v. Evans-Feder (866 F.Supp. 860) for the purpose of the Hague Convention).

When the mother and Ms Greig filed a Hague Convention application with the British authorities in September 2003, the child had been voluntarily returned to the UK after the British courts had seized jurisdiction of the matter and issued parental rights to the father and after the child’s “unilateral removal” from the UK to the US by the mother claiming to be a victim of domestic violence and thereby securing the assistance of the U.S. Embassy London. Further, the mother confirmed and represented to the British court and authorities that the mother and child had resided for more than 180 days in the State of Florida and both the mother and Ms Greig of the U.S. Department of State represented that Florida did indeed hold jurisdiction over the child.

There are therefore two frauds at work here; firstly, a domestic violence fraud to initially remove the child to the United States, and, secondly, a fraudulent claim to the British Supreme Court that jurisdiction lay in Florida when it did not, and after the child had voluntarily been returned to the UK once the British courts had seized jurisdiction and issued orders (said orders quashed based on the same fraudulent claim Florida held jurisdiction).

2. The decision of the 5^th DCA directly conflicts with the decision in T.B.-v-Department of Children and Families (718 So.2d 397) in that the child has been allowed no medical treatment for a treatable eye condition rendering her permanently blinded and is directly analogous to the referenced case where said conduct was ground for termination of parental rights but in the case at review, is not grounds for reversing a custody decision.

Further, the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s ruling is not in conformity with the order of the British Supreme Court of October 3^rd, 2003 that the child would receive “forthwith upon her return” medical treatment for the eye condition. For the purposes of the UCCJEA, a foreign country is treated, “as if it were a state of the United States” for the purposes of applying the provisions of the UCCJEA, which includes recognition and enforcement of the orders of “sister states”.

Further, the British Supreme Court order submitted to the Lower Court should have been granted full faith and credit by the State of Florida. See Vagenas v. Continental Gin Company, 988 F.2d 104 (11^th Cir. 1993) (treaty between the United States and Greece elevated foreign judgment to status of sister state judgment). The UK is to be treated as a sister state in this instance. The British Supreme Court ordered medical treatment for the child’s blindness. There has been no enforcement by the Lower Courts. The child has received nine medical examinations by British and US doctors who recommended treatment. There has been no treatment for the condition in the U.S. The child is now permanently blinded in her affected eye. The order of the British Supreme Court was one to be enforced by the lower courts of this State, not ignored.

3. The 5^th DCA ruling opines that there are no errors on the face of the judgment which accordingly restricts their review, however there are substantial errors on the face of the judgment, including the omission of enforcement of medical treatment for the child as ordered by a superior court of a sister state and the claim that one of the parties had resided in the State for more than 6 months prior to filing. Further, that the father “wrongly retained” the child from the jurisdiction of Florida, and yet the Fifth District Court of Appeal has correctly opined there was no jurisdiction in Florida. Further, the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s ruling relies on, and yet is in conflict with Aguirre, 985 So 2d at 1206 where a finding that primary residential custody is in the “best interests” of the child is sufficient to uphold a custody determination so long as there is substantial competent evidence in the record that permits the court to properly evaluate the relevant factors. The record is silent on any evidence to support the mother’s claim to primary residential custody because there is absolutely no evidence in support of her claim. The record on appeal has been supplemented by a mountain of evidence on behalf of the father demonstrating the mother’s unfitness for an award of primary residential custody. The record on appeal was supplemented because the trial court would not consider any depositions or medical evidence of the father and they were excluded by the trial judge after final hearing though submitted at trial.

4. The 5^th DCA decision to affirm an award of primary residency to the mother conflicts with Matajek v. Skrowonska (927 So.2d 981) in that the trial court abused its discretion because no reasonable person would take the view it adopted based upon the evidence before it.

The mother:

· according to the Fifth District Court of Appeal, at p.6 of its ruling, “The child was born in the United Kingdom … and removed to Florida by the mother’s unilateral decision.” (emphasis added) – “unilateral removal” is the language of the UCCJEA (and UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) for child abduction;

· further abducted the child out of state and concealed the child from the father when he had a legal custody order and made efforts to change the child’s identity (both with the assistance of Ms Greig of the Department of State);

· has neglected the child to the point of blindness;

· attempted to sell/adopt the child and placed her into the care of strangers and including into the care and contact of a convicted pedophile;

· has severely abused the domestic violence protection system and falsely accused the father of sexual abuse of the child, including coaching of the child in the making of said allegations as well as falsely accusing him of making child pornography with his children in England;

· has abused the child by coaching her in the making of false sexual abuse statements against her father, and subjecting the child to a forensic sexual battery regime, including vaginal and anal examinations, based upon her false claims of sexual abuse knowing none had in fact occurred; and

· The mother conspired with Barbara Greig of the US Department of State to abduct the child under “color of law”, to deny the father entry to the country to litigate or enjoy court ordered visitation, to have the father arrested, incarcerated and deported, to repeatedly file false police complaints resulting in numerous investigations/prosecutions all of which have found no basis for any offense and false allegations on the part of the mother.

No reasonable person would agree that an award of custody to the mother is reasonable and therefore, the trial judge abused his discretion in rendering such an award.

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing arguments and authorities, the Petitioner, Karl Ernest Hindle, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to accept jurisdiction and address the adverse international, national and local consequences of the Fifth District’s decision.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been

furnished by First Class U.S. Mail to: Kim Banister, Esq., Community Legal Services of Mid-Florida, Inc, 128 Orange Avenue, Suite 100, Daytona Beach, Florida 32114

on this 4th day of June 2010

_______________________________

KARL E. HINDLE

Pro Se Petitioner

CERTIFICATE OF FONT COMPLIANCE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the instant brief has been prepared with Times

New Roman 14-point font in compliance with Fla.R.App.P. 9.210(a)(2).

_______________________________

KARL E. HINDLE

Pro Se Petitioner

APPENDIX

Copy of Hague Convention Order of British High Court (Supreme Court)

Copy of Fifth District Court of Appeal Opinion

MOTION FOR APPENDING STATEMENT OF CASE AND FACTS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: SC10-982

KARL E. HINDLE

Petitioner

VS.

SHEILA KAY FUITH, N.K.A.

SHEILA KAY SWINDELL

Respondent

__________________________/

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT JURISIDCTION BRIEF WITH STATEMENT OF CASE AND FACTS IN EXCESS OF PERMITTED BRIEF LENGTH PER Rule 9.120

On review from an opinion rendered by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Case No. 5D08 - 3850

Here comes the petitioner, Karl E. Hindle, a pro se party who has filed his brief on jurisdiction and respectfully requests that the attached statement of the case and facts be appended to the jurisdiction brief which would otherwise be in excess of the 10 page length allowed by Rule 9.120. The Fifth District Court of Appeal has not properly or completely enunciated the case in its opinion.

The respondent mother shall not be prejudiced, nor will the petitioning father gain any advantage, by the granting of this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________ Dated: June 4th 2010

Karl E. Hindle

Pro Se Petitioner

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been

furnished by First Class U.S. Mail to: Kim Banister, Esq., Community Legal Services of Mid-Florida, Inc, 128 Orange Avenue, Suite 100, Daytona Beach, Florida 32114

on this Fourth day of June 2010

_______________________________

KARL E. HINDLE

Pro Se Petitioner

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

The facts of the case are not put forth completely by the opinion of the Fifth District Court of Appeal.

The child was born in England to unmarried parents on March 1^st, 2002 – the mother is American, the father is British. At age 6 months, the child was diagnosed with an eye condition known as amblyopia and which was rendering the little girl blinded in her right eye, but for which treatment was available and provided at the local British hospital.

On January 7^th, 2003, the American mother left the home shared with the father and arranged a US passport without the father’s knowledge or consent from the American Embassy, London claiming domestic violence. Said passport was issued in violation of federal law requiring both parents signature. The child was removed from the UK to Maryland in February 2003 and all medical treatment for the child’s blindness ceased. To date, no medical treatment has been provided for the child’s blindness in the United States despite numerous examinations resulting in advice to treat the child.

The mother attempted to sell the child in an unlawful adoption arrangement in Wisconsin in and around March/April 2003. This unlawful adoption resulted in the then one year old child being placed with her “adoptive parents” and this also brought the child into the care and contact of a convicted pedophile, Leslie Merriam. The father and British Government sought the intervention of law enforcement and social services, however police reports indicate that the US Department of State had advised that the father was an abuser and as a consequence the child had been removed from the UK and the father was not to know the whereabouts of his child and the mother. The mother recovered the child and disappeared once more.

The father sought to petition the court in Minnesota, in March 2003 and where the mother had also been spending time as she hopped from state to state. Contemporaneously, the father also sought to petition the court in Wisconsin in connection with the issues confronting the child where the mother had also spent some time. In both cases he was unsuccessful and advised jurisdiction lay in the UK.

The father petitioned the UK court which did seize the matter and he was awarded parental rights on August 14^th, 2003, no other court having jurisdiction. The mother was given the option of voluntarily returning the child or facing the FBI as the father was seeking their intercession due to his missing child and concerns for her safety and care.

The mother returned to the UK with the child on September 19^th, 2003 whereupon the child was removed from the mother by British police and handed to the father. The father then returned to the British court, however the proceedings where stayed by order of the High Court (the British Supreme Court).

Barbara J. Greig of the Office of Childrens Issues, U.S. Department of State filed an application for the return of the child to Florida under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980). The application was based on the mother and Ms Greig’s claim that Florida held jurisdiction over the child, the father, therefore, was wrongly retaining the child in the UK. This was a fraudulent claim on the part of Ms Greig and the mother – the mother having been “resident” in Florida for six weeks at most, having moved through several US states since unilaterally removing the child in February 2003 from the UK.

The British Supreme Court accepted the representations of the mother and US Government that Florida held jurisdiction, and the child was “returned” to the state of Florida for proceedings to take place, but with a conditional order, notably for the child to receive medical attention for her eye condition, “forthwith” and the filing of proceedings in Florida. On October 5^th, 2003, the child was flown to Florida and the father then filed the action in Volusia County Court which forms the basis for these proceedings in November 2003.

The father was then advised by Ms Greig’s supervisor, Mr Glen Keiser (Chief, Child Abduction Section) that he could no longer travel to the US without a visa. He duly applied for a visa to travel for visitation ordered by the British Supreme Court and to commence the litigation process in Florida. The initial hearing was to take place in January 2004.

The father was denied a visa to travel for court ordered visitation and to attend court hearings on the recommendation of Ms Greig and Mr Kesier.

A renewed effort was made to procure a visa, this time with the assistance of the British Government who reminded the US authorities of their Hague treaty obligations. A visa was issued to travel for court hearings in April 2004.

The father entered the US and dealt with his court business but was not allowed visitation until his day of departure. Barbara J. Greig of the US Department of State advised the mother and her attorney of the father’s visa conditions and terms, and together it was arranged to summons him to court to defend against an application for a domestic violence injunction. It was also discovered that the mother had not been resident in the State of Florida as claimed before the British Supreme Court by her and Ms Greig.

The father applied to extend his visa and remained to defend against the domestic violence action as a default judgment would have been used to justify denying him further entry to the country.

The domestic violence proceedings were heard on April 20^th, 2004 and the father successfully defended himself against the allegations of the mother. Further, the mother was admonished for her dishonest conduct and for misusing the domestic violence process to gain advantage in the custody proceedings. The father was also awarded unsupervised visitation with the child, however the trial court refused to deal with the issue of the jurisdictional defect nor with the enforcement of the child’s medical treatment for her blindness.

On May 28^th 2004, as the father was waiting at the visitation pick-up point, he was approached by two US Government officers and arrested. The arrest was carried out at the request of Barbara Greig to US Immigration, claiming, along with the mother and her attorney, that the father was a threat and a menace to the child and mother. The father was incarcerated for 5 weeks and given the option of voluntary departure or facing 6 months in jail pending the US Government appeal against his proposed release by the Federal immigration judge. The father accepted the former and departed the US in July 2004 not wishing to spend 6 months in prison.

This incident caused a diplomatic exchange between the US and British authorities.

The father was repeatedly denied visas to travel to the US for further court hearings on the grounds he was a threat to the American mother. After questions were asked in the British Parliament and further diplomatic intercession, including the assistance of the offices of Congressman Mica, a visa was procured to travel to the US and the father did enter the US in January 2005.

At this point, the mother did flee the state and the child was classified as “Missing & Endangered” by F.D.L.E., however witness depositions demonstrate the mother and child were concealed with the assistance and knowledge of Ms Greig of the Office of Childrens Issues, extending to consideration of changing the mother and child’s identities to avoid detection. The father was compelled to return to the UK in January 2005 due to visa restrictions imposed by the Department of State, but was then denied visas to return to the country to look for the child or to litigate.

The child was eventually located in Kansas/Missouri and returned with her mother to Florida in January 2006. The father was allowed a visa to travel to the US for court hearing of January 13^th, 2006 whereupon the mother was found guilty of criminal contempt of court, but retained custody of the child and escaped jail to avoid traumatizing the child by separating her from her mother. The father was ordered to have “reunification visitation” with the child with the mother and her observer present.

On January 28^th, 2006 the father was accused of having vaginal, anal and masturbatory sex with the child during one of these reunification sessions. He was accused of this by the mother in a hand written police report filed with Daytona Beach P.D.

The father cooperated with the child sexual abuse investigation, though went into hiding when persons unknown, but associated with the mother, were brought to a further visitation session and proceeded to threaten to kill him. As a consequence of the fear the father felt, all visitation ceased, but not because his rights were suspended by the investigating authorities and with whom he extended full cooperation.

In May 2006, a further hearing was held to deal with the medical issue after an independent medical examination was conducted and which found the child had been treatable but was now probably permanently blinded. The court was also asked to deal with the false sexual abuse allegations of the mother which by now had been found by the investigation team to be the product of coaching of the then 4 year old child by the mother and the father had not abused the child.

Judge Doyle had the DCF investigator removed from the court at the commencement of this hearing and then proceeded to have the father removed when he claimed the child was going blind. No further consideration of the child’s medical condition was allowed except that a further medical examination was ordered. However, the father was compelled to return to the UK due to visa conditions, but immediately sought a visa to return to continue litigation. The child had by now been held in the US for two and half years despite lack of jurisdiction and without any enforcement of the British Supreme Court order for medical treatment for her blindness and which by now had become permanent.

The father was again denied visas to return to the US, again on the grounds he had harassed the American mother.

Finally, a visa was issued for the father to attend a belated final hearing to determine custody issues, in May 2008 – some 5 years after the child had been unilaterally removed from the UK by the mother and US Embassy, London.

At trial, Judge Doyle stated that “In this County, we’re provincials. We don’t do the Hague Convention” and refused to address the jurisdictional defect. Judgment was rendered by that court in October 2008, the delay due to Judge Doyle seeking to unblock the mother’s and Barbara Greig’s work in having the father permanently barred from entering the country.

Final judgment awarded primary residency to the mother with visitation to the father, approximately $30,000 in back child-support (ignoring child support already paid), assessed monthly child support on disability income of the father and all visitation costs against the father with said visitation only taking place in Panama City, Florida where the child now resides. The judgment brazenly claimed that one of the parties had been resident in the State of Florida for more than 6 months as the basis for claiming jurisdiction – a blatant untruth, the trial court having been advised throughout proceedings of the lack of jurisdiction. It should be noted that Judge Doyle was compelled to resign amidst controversy for not hearing evidence, issuing summary judgment without proper hearing and after being removed from family court, then foreclosure issues and finally, Marchman and Baker Act hearings by the Chief Judge.

It should also be noted, that to date the father has been the victim of over 300 false police reports filed by the mother and her proxies which have resulted in six major investigations and/or prosecutions for stalking, harassment, sexual abuse of his children in the UK, sexual abuse of the child in Florida, and a host of other allegations, ALL of which have resulted in findings of no offense, dismissal with prejudice and that the mother has been making false allegations. The latest prosecution being for stalking but resulting in dismissal with prejudice in January 2010 by Bay County Court, Florida after it was ascertained the father was out of State when the alleged offenses occurred (and he was in the UK when the prosecution was launched). All visitations have ceased due to the father’s fear for his safety and liberty and the mother’s continuing non-compliance with court ordered visitation.

The father appealed the ruling to the Fifth District Court of Appeal on a timely basis in November 2008 which ruled that Florida did not hold jurisdiction at the time of filing the case (and therefore at the time of the Hague Convention hearings in London) but nevertheless, jurisdiction could be claimed because no other US state had jurisdiction. Certain aspects of the final judgment were reversed (the child support award (both back support and monthly award) and visitation costs issue), though allowing the mother to continue to retain primary residency of the child. That court claimed no transcript had been provided and so could not deal with the issues unless an error occurred on the face of the judgment, but that court had previously denied the petitioner’s motion to supplement the record with said transcript after he realized the clerk of the lower court did not do this automatically when compiling the record (he is not a lawyer).

The Fifth District Court of Appeal Rules on Emily

2010-06-04T05:22:00.005+01:00

I received the ruling from the 5th District Court of Appeal in Daytona, FL last month. I have been busy with a couple of issues, notably filing the papers for taking the case to the Supreme Court and now I can post an update on Emily's case.

The Appeal court ruled partially in my favour and partially against me.

I won:

reversal of the $30,000 back child support award;
reversal of the monthly child support award (it was around $780 per month);
the mother must pay her share towards the visitation costs (I paid all of it previously)
that Emily's mother unilaterally removed her from the UK; and
most important of all -

The Appeal court ruled there was NO jurisdiction in Florida nor anywhere else in the United States!

I lost:

because they decided they were keeping Emily anyway;
they ignored the neglect for Emily's blindness;
they ignored Emily being placed up for sale/adoption; and
they ignored Emily being given to a pedophile in Wisconsin
but most of all -

The Appeal Court is keeping Emily with her mother!

A full copy of the opinion is to be found here

I have appealed the appeal to the Florida Supreme Court on the jurisdiction issue and the neglect of Emily's eye condition and several other matters, but this is the last step before we get into Federal court.

Pro Se All the Way!

Japan/UK Dialogue on Accession to Hague Convention

2010-02-10T23:08:00.009Z

Yesterday, British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband spoke with his Japanese counterpart, Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada regarding Japanese accession to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Miliband quoted Okada as stating,

"I fully understand the seriousness of the issue."

For several years, mounting pressure has been applied on Japanese officials to accede to the Hague Convention.

A recent round of US/Japanese diplomatic talks, have led some parents to criticize both American and Japanese governments for not doing enough to help left-behind parents and internationally abducted children.

It is not just the US that has been making representations; the G8 countries have collectively been applying pressure. Canada, Australia and New Zealand have numerous cases where children abducted to Japan have all but disappeared from the lives of their left-behind parent. In addition, fellow G8 members - the UK, Spain and France - have been raising the issue too.

In the context of international child abduction, the much maligned Hague Convention is still the mechanism of choice, however, Japan has so far failed to accede to the Convention for a number of reasons, mostly cultural and specifically, on the basis that signing the Convention could place Japanese mothers and children in harms way if they were fleeing abusive partners.

Visitation in Japan upon Divorce

In Japan, the notion of shared custody or visitation with a child by the non-resident parent is practically non-existent. One parent, typically the mother, is awarded sole custody and the matter ends there - continuing contact between children and non-resident parents (fathers) is nil to negligible. In many respects, it is the Japanese legal system which is deficient in the inability to recognize the right of a child to continuing contact and involvement with the non-residential parent.

This sharply contrasts with the legal position in many Western countries which, if not perfect in practice, do frequently recognize the bonds of love and support between child and non-residential parent and seek to continue contact between children and fathers after divorce.

The Hague Convention's Cultural Challenge

The issue of domestic violence is a smelly cauldron, and one which the US in particular, does not have a credible leg to stand on. Morally, Japan is right to take its stand with "protecting" Japanese mothers claiming abuse when the US does so in so many cases when the tables are turned - even providing a specific exemption for the two-parent signature law to gain a US passport for children to effect their removal to the US from overseas.

Domestic violence is a challenge no matter whether the Hague Convention is in situ or not.

The issue at hand is the adoption of an international treaty which recognizes the rights of children to both parents by a country which does not have any cultural or legal basis for doing so. In Japan, children go to the mother and father is out of their life until they grow up - this is the practical situation and very close to the legal one.

Imagine the effect of Japanese courts granting visitation rights to "geijin" foreign fathers (and most will be fathers), while Japanese dads can't get a look in. Personally, I don't see that happening in practice, and yet, so many appear to be placing faith in the Hague Convention as a step in resolution of abductions to Japan.

One left-behind parent, Carlos Bermudez with his son, Sage, abducted from the US to Mexico, pointedly quipped:

"You're given a box marked Hague Convention on the side and you open it up to find you have a pea-shooter with which to take on a tank!"

Parents with children internationally abducted to Japan, are in for a very rude awakening when they get to try to use the Hague Convention, as and when Japan accedes to it.

But, there is the rub - I feel sure Japan will accede to it and in doing so, an opportunity will exist to continue to cast some daylight on the murky underbelly of international child abduction and the use of domestic violence allegations as a tool to justify abductions, not by the Japanese, but by the United States. Accession will also mean the US Department of State can shuffle Hague Convention application paperwork and play the waiting game with left-behind parents, with children in Japan, in exactly the same fashion they do so today with parents abducted to any other Hague country.

Japan signing the Hague Convention without a major cultural shift in thinking and behavior is full of challenges and obstacles; but teh Hague Convention is the hope parents with children in Japan will cling to as is the case with the rest of us. Without the US authorities performing a similar acrobatic feat in shifting thinking and attitudes, especially with how they manage Hague Convention cases, my honest view is the entire process is meaningless.

That is not what parents with children in Japan want to hear.

The Scales of Justice Must be Balanced by Ricardo Zamariola

2010-02-09T18:04:00.003Z

I came across this highly succinct article published in Brazil (obviously in Portuguese but I do not know who made the translation so cannot give credit) - the article itself was written by the Brazilian lawyer, Ricardo Zamariola Jr. Zamariola represented David Goldman in his six-year battle to recover Sean Goldman back to his home in New Jersey.

While this article is written from the perspective of improving the Brazilian legal process for handling Hague Convention cases, the truth is every country has something to learn and could overhaul existing processes to ensure the four-fold issues highlighted by Mr Zamariola regarding judicial sluggishness, are addressed:

legal delay encourages international child abduction;
it encourages left-behind parents to pursue the "self-help" route and re-abduct the child;
abductors are rewarded with custody whether legal or de facto; and
it cheats the Hague Convention treaty partner from which the child has been abducted and compromises the trust and reciprocity enjoyed when a Brazilian parent invokes the treaty for the return of a child to Brazil.

One issue which appears to be left is the lack of compliance after a child is returned to their state of habitual residence - Hague Convention orders for the interests of the child, must be complied with (undertakings); proceedings which are then initiated or recommenced must be heard promptly and effectively and it goes without saying, fairly. As the Convention is a civil remedy, it is important that the child is not simply moved from one parent/jurisdiction which is denying the child their rights, to a left-behind parent who then re-imposes the denial of the child to the abducting parent to the detriment of the child.

If David Goldman's wife, Bruna Bianchi was still alive, Sean Goldman should not be denied contact and visitation with his abducting mother, unless there were adjudicated reasons why it would not be Sean's best interests to have that contact. In Sean's case it is moot as Bruna is dead, but one issue which is frequently overlooked amidst the very charged emotions involved is that the Hague Convention is a civil and not a criminal remedy. The Hague Convention should not be used, and its stated aim is certainly not, to deny a child their basic human rights - a right to both mother and father. It is a fine balancing act requiring sensitive, yet robust, judicial management.

Numerous countries should take note - the United States not least.

Here is the article and a link to the original:

The Scales of Justice must be balanced
RICARDO ZAMARIOLA JUNIOR
The Sean Goldman case showed how the issue of sluggishness in the Brazilian Justice system goes beyond the limits of our borders
THE CONTROVERSIAL case involving the minor Sean Goldman reveals how the issue of the sluggishness of Brazilian Justice goes beyond the limits of our borders, compromising Brazil’s international responsibility. We took almost six years to comply with an obligation that we should have honored in six weeks under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects if International Child Abduction.

The Hague Convention is an international treaty that 81 nations have signed up to, includingBrazil. Under its terms, when a child is taken from the country they live in without due respect for the laws in place there – conduct that the treaty classifies as abduction – the country they are transferred to will have to rule on their return to the first country. The convention stipulates that this return take place within six weeks, emphasizing urgency as a way to guarantee the child the least emotional disturbance possible.

Today, however, our Justice system is incapable of complying with the deadline established by the convention because of the ideology that forms the basis of the Brazilian civil procedure.

The judicial process works with two opposing requirements: speed and justice. A just decision demands reflection, which is an activity that requires time. However, the time taken in finding a solution to the case prolongs the uncertainty experienced by the parties and compromises the very effectiveness of the decision.

It is from balance in protecting these two values - speed and justice – that results a process able to pacify society. And it is precisely here that the balance of our Justice system fails.

The current Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure, published in 1973, above all privileges the value justice, allowing exhaustive re-discussion of each decision and prohibiting the decision on a victor prior to the end of the process. When the Hague Convention is involved, this obsessive pursuit of the fairest decision is reduced, paradoxically, to a situation in which justice is not served for anyone.

This is no exaggeration. On the one hand, the delay in the process prolongs the child’s stay inBrazil, which allows its adaptation to the new environment and means that a return to the country they lived in imposes a second emotional trauma. Sean’s case is a perfect example of this fact.

On the other hand, however, ruling that the child remain in Brazil because they have adapted reveals a cowardly injustice for the parent who rapidly initiates the return process, then having to wait for a response from the Brazilian Justice system – it goes without saying, this is what happens in the majority of cases.

Furthermore, more broadly speaking, not returning the child because they have adapted [to the new country] leads to other serious consequences: (i) it encourages abduction, because the abductor will know that the sluggishness of the Justice system will work in their favor, regardless of the unlawfulness of their conduct; (ii) it invites the parents who have suffered to rescue their children from Brazil independently of judicial order, to get justice for themselves; (iii) it gives custody to the one who broke the law, to the detriment of those who used legal means to protect their rights; and (iv) it cheats the other 80 signatory countries to the convention, compromising the reciprocity expected of them to return children to Brazil who have been taken unlawfully from our country. In the middle of this confusion of values, there is always a child...

This situation illustrates the obvious: we need to shake off our fear of making mistakes and speed up Brazil’s civil procedure.

Fortunately, recent legislative alterations have indicated a way forward. However, the most laudable initiative is from the Federal Senate –yes, we must praise it, when it deserves it – which last October set up a commission to draw up a new Code of Civil Procedure.

Made up of legal scholars of the highest level and presided over by Judge Luiz Fux, of the Superior Tribunal of Justice, the commission will introduce a draft by May 2010.

Dozens of international child abduction cases arise around the world every day, including in Brazil. If we do not balance the scales of Brazilian Justice, adding more weight to speed, the HagueConvention will have no meaning in Brazil.

It will be one more example of that typically Brazilian phenomenon, perhaps unparalleled, of law that does not work. But, should this happen, it will be an example of global proportions, causing us to blush in the international community.

May the case involving little Sean serve as a warning.

1,000 Mile Stalking Charges Dismised with PREJUDICE

2010-01-17T12:22:00.009Z

Last year I was charged with stalking Paul Swindell, Emily's new step-father by Panama City P.D. in Bay County, Florida - despite residing one thousand miles away in Richmond, Virginia and now here in the UK.

Paul Swindell is a man with a long history of violent offences and arrests including for domestic violence (how ironic), assault & battery and grand theft, and he was the man who <">threatened my fiance and I when we finally got to see Emily last year (for the only time in four years).

True to Floridian form, Swindell has found gainful employment in law enforcement as a corrections officer working for the Bay County Juvenile Detention Center, itself fraught with issues of mistreatment and wrongful deaths of juvenile inmates.

I couldn't make this up but when people hear where this is happening, the standard reaction is, "That's Florida!"

The Banana Republic of the USA has finally decided that there is no evidence except Swindell's say-so that he was "continuously followed" by me - the case has therefore been DISMISSED with PREJUDICE ...

or in other words,

Paul Swindell

You're a liar!

This is the 6th time I have been the subject of a major investigation by US and British law enforcement on the allegations of these two individuals -all ending with the same result - how much money has this cost the US taxpayer?

Hundreds of thousands of dollars?

What are the odds Swindell will be disciplined or punished?

Far less than the odds of me being being accused of some nonsense as soon as they can hatch another effort to try to keep me away from the court and Emily Rose.

7 Years Today - New Year Resolution for 2010: Bring Emily Home!

2010-01-07T09:51:00.003Z

I've received emails over the holidays asking for a summary of what has happened and what the status is now, so on this January 7th, 2010 - the 7th Anniversary of Emily Rose being taken it - here is a summary:

Current Situation
Emily Rose Proceedings

The 5th District Court of Appeal in Daytona, FL has the first appeal before it and has done so since November 2008 - more than a year ago.

The mother has admitted FL did not have jurisdiction over Emily but is now claiming that as Emily Rose has been retained in Florida for so long, she should now stay.

Stalking Charges

In September, 2009 the mother's husband, Paul Swindell, a Corrections Officer filed charges claiming I was continuously following him and had his home under observation.

These are false complaints as I was in Virginia, a thousand miles away when he made these claims.

Nevertheless, the court in Panama City, Bay County has issued a warrant for my arrest despite still NOT being served with any court papers or charging document.

If I return to the US, I will be arrested and incarcerated for several weeks, and probably several months, awaiting transportation to Florida.

My position is this warrant is designed to stop me from continuing the appeal by scaring me into not attending the oral argument as and when it is scheduled.

Read the summary and make your own judgment as to why someone is being charged and prosecuted for stalking from across the Atlantic Ocean.

History of Emily Rose Hindle Abduction
The principal issues are:

Abduction of Emily Rose from UK to US with assistance of U.S. Department of State officials, notably Barbara Greig of the Office of Children's Issues and hiding and concealing Emily Rose across the U.S. including when I had legal custody of her;
Allowing Emily Rose to go without medical treatment for her eye condition which has now rendered her permanently blinded in her right eye - 9 American and British eye specialists recommended treatment to save her sight (which needed to be completed before she turned 3/4 years old) and it was ordered under a Hague Convention order by a Supreme Court Justice in London, U.K. but completely ignored by the U.S. court and authorities;
The sale and adoption efforts of Emily Rose's mother which also placed Emily Rose into the care and contact of a convicted pedophile, Leslie Merriam in Wisconsin;
The conduct of Barbara Greig and the U.S. Department of State to block my efforts to litigate in the U.S. by orchestrating my arrest, incarceration and deportation to stop court proceedings and thwart court orders;
The continued abuse of Emily Rose by her mother and step-father, including coaching Emily Rose in the making of sexual abuse allegations while the Floridian authorities do nothing - the response of DCF has been to threaten me with criminal proceedings for making false neglect reports when I complained of Emily Rose's eye neglect, for instance; and
The filing of over 300 police complaints by the mother, her husband and some of her friends claiming stalking, harassment, domestic violence, child abuse, sexual assault on the child and much more - only to be found to be false by numerous police investigations and court rulings - and yet no sanction against the mother, except to find her guilty of criminal contempt on one occasion has been applied - at a cost of hundreds of thousands of tax dollars, the US government and FL authorities refuse to protect Emily and continue to try to paint me as a bad man no matter how many times the courts say she's misbehaving.

The Hague Convention and History

Emily Rose was born on March 1st, 2002 to Sheila Kay Fuith and Karl Hindle - Sheila is American and I am British, and Emily was born in Britain. Sheila and I were never married.

Emily Rose was diagnosed with an eye condition which was leaving her to go permanently blind in her right eye but she was treatable as it had been caught so early. We started treatment for Emily Rose at the local hospital in Britain.

On January 7th 2003, Sheila took Emily Rose from our home while I was at work.

Sheila went to the U.S. Embassy London, and claimed to be a victim of domestic violence, obtained a passport and took Emily Rose to Maryland, U.S. without my knowledge or consent.

Shortly after, she moved to Minnesota and then Wisconsin.

I started to search for Emily Rose and found that Sheila was married with two children she had abandoned in Minnesota; I did not know of this family throughout my relationship with Sheila.

In March 2003, Sheila tried to sell/adopt Emily Rose to Dale & Shannon Merriam in Wausau, Wisconsin.

This brought Emily Rose into the care of Leslie Merriam, a convicted pedophile.

The police were involved but were advised the U.S. Embassy and State Department had removed Emily Rose from the U.K. due to an abusive relationship, and I was not to know where Emily Rose and her mother were in the U.S.

Sheila and Emily disappeared completely in May 2003.

I had meanwhile retained lawyers in Wisconsin and Minnesota to start legal proceedings but was advised there was no jurisdiction and to file in the U.K.

I filed in July 2003 in the U.K. and was awarded parental rights on August 14th, 2003.

Sheila agreed to meet in Florida in August 2003 to discuss issues because I was dealing with the F.B.I. who were looking at warrants for the arrest of Sheila for medical neglect and child endangerment.

Sheila and I met in Florida where she told me she was living in Virginia.

She claimed she was getting medical treatment for Emily but she was lying and leaving Emily Rose to go blind.

I offered reconciliation if Sheila returned to the U.K. - she accepted.

On September 19th, 2003 Sheila and Emily Rose returned to the U.K. whereupon the British police stopped Sheila and removed Emily Rose from her mother and gave her to me.

Sheila then invoked the Hague Convention claiming I had kidnapped Emily Rose from Florida.

Barbara Greig at the Office of Children's Issues claimed Florida held jurisdiction because Sheila and Emily Rose had lived there for more than 6 months. This was a lie.

The High Court London heard the Hague application and sent Emily Rose to Florida for proceedings to take place but ordered medical treatment for the eye condition "forthwith upon return".

Greig and her boss, Glen Keiser then arranged for the revocation of my visa privileges and the refusal of visas to travel to the U.S. for Florida court proceedings and for court ordered visitation with Emily Rose.

Finally, I was allowed to travel in April 2004 with my visa expiring on 20th April (restricted by Greig and Keiser recommendations) - Greig communicated visa restrictions to Sheila and her attorney for use in timing court hearings after my visa expired.

As I was preparing to leave the U.S. I was offered a chance to see Emily Rose, but only on my day of departure - this was to try to entice me to violate the visa conditions and was made on the day before my flight.

I was also summonsed to defend myself against a domestic violence injunction application to be heard on the day after the visa expired - if I stayed to defend myself, I violated the State Department restriction to leave the country, if I didn't defend myself it would justify barring me from any further travel to the U.S. (which was happening in any event).

I applied to extend the visa and stayed.

I won the domestic violence injunction - Sheila was admonished for her dishonesty.

I was then arrested by U.S. Immigration for overstaying the visa beyond the State Department restrictions (even though I had applied for an extension) - this was ordered by Barbara Greig, responsible for the Hague Convention implementation with the U.K., but subsequently denied by the then director of OCI, John Ballif.

The US Immigration report paints a very different picture citing the State Department was responsible.

I spent a month in immigration detention until I was deported in May 2004. I was then permanently barred from entering the U.S. on the grounds I had harassed the American citizen mother - the U.S. Embassy claimed it did not have to follow the court orders or the Hague Convention.

When the British Government sought explanation it was advised that, Greig and the State Department had no involvement in my arrest and deportation, that they did not have any authority to conduct any investigation into my presence in the U.S. and that they had not done so. Further, the U.S. Department of State was not stopping me from seeing Emily Rose or litigating in Florida by delaying or denying visa issuance.

I was permanently barred from entering the U.S. on the grounds I had harassed the American mother - William Muntean of the U.S. Embassy, London was presented with my court orders under the Hague Convention and from the Florida court granting child visitation and the domestic violence finding in my favor. His reponse when denying the visa to get back to the U.S. was simple:

"We don't have to follow those!"

I was unable to travel to the U.S. until January 2005, after I had obtained a visa with the help of the offices of Congressman Mica.

Upon learning of my visa being issued, Sheila abducted Emily Rose out of state and hid her.

Missing & Endangered: Abducted from Florida

Emily Rose was classified as a Missing & Endangered Child by Florida Department of Law Enforcement (F.D.L.E.) but the U.S. Embassy would not allow me back in to the country to look for her nor to continue legal proceedings.

Emily Rose was located in Kansas/Missouri and brought down to Florida in January 2006 whereupon the judge ordered Emily Rose will stay with her mom and we would start visitation yet again.

Sheila was found guilty of criminal contempt but not jailed or punished by the judge, His Honor Judge John Doyle.

On January 28th, 2006 Sheila accused me of having anal sex and other sexual activity with Emily Rose.

I went into hiding because several people connected with Sheila threatened to kill me and I waited for the investigation to be conducted.

The consensus of Daytona Beach P.D., D.C.F. and the State Attorney as well as the medical personnel at Halifax Medical Center, Daytona, was that no abuse had taken place and Sheila was coaching Emily Rose in the making of statements and teaching her the male masturbation motion.

In May 2006 there was a hearing on the child sexual abuse and the treatment for Emily Rose's eye condition.

The judge refused to hear any evidence of the sexual abuse report by Sheila - her attorney, Kim Banister lied to the court repeatedly that her client was not behind the report - she had a copy of Sheila's handwritten police complaint in her possession when she did this.

Judge Doyle had the investigating D.C.F. official removed from the court room.

Judge Doyle also refused to hear evidence on the eye condition and claimed;

"A patch? A patch! Is that what this is all about? It doesn't seem important to me!"

With that, Emily Rose was allowed to go permanently blind and I had then to return to the U.K. because my visa was expiring.

I said,

"But she's going blind!"

Judge Doyle ordered me removed from the court room.

Upon returning to the UK I applied on numerous occasions to get a visa to travel back to the US for court ordered visitation, but more importantly to conclude the legal proceedings.

Multiple visa requests were denied - officially the US Embassy claimed I was attempting to emigrate to the US, unofficially and as recorded during visa interviews in the Embassy, the reason they were using was the harassment of the American mother and they were ignoring the findings of the Hague Convention and the US court ordering visitation and finding the mother in criminal contempt for her conduct in making false allegations and abducting Emily from Florida.

With the assistance of several attorneys, Congressman Mica's offices and the British Government a visa was procured for trial in May 2008 - some 5 years after Emily was sent for "prompt and effective" hearings in the US.

We had request three days for presentation of evidence including the evidence of the fraud on the British High Court with the mother's and State Department's claims that Florida held jurisdiction, Emily's blindness and medical neglect, the sexual abuse coaching, the sale/adoption of Emily and being given into the care and contact of a convicted pedophile.

Judge Doyle threatened to jail me to "straighten me out" and that we would only have the day to present evidence and if we did not leave enough time for the mother to respond he would automatically award custody to the mother.

Judge Doyle refused to allow depositions to be read into the record - depositions of the pedophile, Leslie Merriam; members of her family who testified she was not fit to look after Emily; the medical evidence; the sexual abuse evidence and more - all were ruled not admissible.
Judge Doyle did not keep out the evidence of the mother and Barbara Greig at OCI arrangin for my arrest in 2004 - upon reading the correspondence Judge Doyle exclaimed:

"Mr Hindle, the Federal Government is screwing you!"

When the jurisdiction issue was raised, Judge Doyle dismissed the lack of jurisdiction stating:

"In this county, we're provincvials. We don't do the Hague Convention!"

I returned to the UK shortly after trial because my visa was once more restricted by the State Department - Emily's mother would not allow me to see her during my visit.

Finally, in October 2008, Judge Doyle issued a final order - Emily was to be kept in Florida with her mother with visitation given to me and a $30,000 back child support bill which took no account of child support already paid.

In November 2008, I filed an appeal with the 5th District Court of Appeal in Daytona - in the mother's appeal brief she admits, Florida did not have jurisdiction at the time she and Barbara Greig of OCI told the UK court it did in fact have it.

By now, financially exhausted (having spent over $400,000), I was forced to represent myself in the legal proceedings.

In November 2008, I tried to see Emily for court ordered visitation - I flew to the US and then drove with my fiance from Richmond VA to Panama City FL - we ran into Sheila at the local police station where a police officer read the order to Sheila (Emily's mom)and told her she had been ordered to give me Thanksgiving visitation.

She flat out refused.

She then offered visitation a few days after Thanksgiving and set a date, time and pick up in Panama City.

We drove back to Richmond VA (990 miles one way)because of work and made the trip back a few days later for visitation.

Emily and her mother did not show.

I did get a summons from the court in Volusia - I was being held in criminal contempt for failing to pay child support and harssing the mother. My child support was current and the mother was claiming me calling or trying to contact her about Emily was harassment.

It was thrown out but Emily and I didn't get to see her for court ordered visitation for Christmas, in January, in February and nor for her birthday.

I filed for criminal contempt of the mother for her behavior - I was then allowed to see Emily for Spring Break in 2009.

With trepidation and submerged hope, we traveled to Panama City FL a third time - to be confronted by a man who threatened first me, and then my fiance - a five foot nothing, not quite 100 pound, kindergarten schoolteacher - in front of Emily and two Panama City PD police officers called to protect the mother who stood not ten feet away and did nothing.

The reason why the police did nothing became apparent - "Paul" claimed to be a cop.

Nevertheless, we came away with Emily - all of us scared.

Patsy (my fiance) and I complained to the police - but we didn't know who the man was except he was called Paul.

We enjoyed a week with Emily - the first time in 3 years we'd seen each other and it was wonderful but Patsy was so scared, she was frightened to be alone (and I admit, so was I).

We had a further hearing in May 2009 on the mother's conduct - the judge refused to act because the matter was before the Appeal court. He asked if I would try visitation again and I refused - I was and continue to be too frightened to do that again - I was right to refuse.

In September 2009, I was advised to leave the US by US Immigration even though we were still waiting for the Appeal to finish.

I returned to the UK and shortly afterwards, Patsy forwarded some papers which advised I had been charged with stalking the man who had threatened us in Panama City - he turned out to be Paul Swindell, Sheila's new husband, but instead of being a cop, he was a Corrections Officer.

Paul Swindle claims I have followed him continuously since April 2009 and have been watching his home, a trailer on a trailer park in Panama City. With the exception of the Spring Break visitation I have not been within 500 miles of Panama City in 2009 - coming to Florida for a one day visit in May for a court hearing at which Judge Rowe refused to act, and again in August, with Patsy, to file the final appellate brief and catch up with my fellow LBP's and friends, Ariel Ayubo and Robert Skelton in New Smyrna Beach on the east coast.

I faxed the court in Panama City explaining I had not been served and was in the UK and asking for representation to be provided. Instead, Judge Shane Vann issued a warrant for my arrest because I had failed to appear before him.

Today, I cannot return to the US as, as a foreigner, I will be arrested and detained by Immigration until transported to Florida for the stalking charge. Unless this is resolved, the Appeal will not proceed as I must attend the oral argument hearing before the Appeal Court - if I do I will be arrested and jailed, if I don't the case will end.

Summary

After experiencing the pain and fear which goes with losing a child to abduction, I have learned a signal lesson - the fear you may feel for yourself is nothing compared to the fear you feel for those you love. Your wife, your husband, your children - I would rather be shot at every day than go through the fear I feel for Emily.

The fear I felt when I found out about the sale/adoption of Emily and especially, when I found the pedophile's involvement - I have never felt fear to such an extent in my life.

To have to stand by and wait for your child to go blind is horrific - a 50 cent eye patch was all that was required, but less than 40 miles from where man was sent to the moon, this did not seem important to the American judge and officials, and least of all to Emily's mother, Sheila Swindell.

To date, I have had over 300 police complaints filed against me by Emily's mom and her friends, including her new husband - stalking, domestic violence, harassment, making child pornography with my children in England, having sex with Emily, attempted break in at her home, surveillance of her home, kidnapping, child abuse and more.

300 reports have produced 6 major police investigations of these complaints in the US and the UK.

They have resulted in 8 instances of the US and UK courts ruling none of this has happened.

Unfortunately, the authorities in the US Government and in Florida are not interested - sooner or later, they will get a verdict even if they have to make up the evidence.

The cost to Emily - her eye and her Daddy and family - the cost to the US taxpayer, hundreds of thousands of your tax dollars.

The cost to me - I cannot write about that.

The cost to Sheila for behaving this way - nothing. No punishment, no sanction - nothing.

One final life lesson for me is that if you are going to succeed in recovering any semblance of a relationship with your child, perhaps even to be fortunate enough to recover your child, you must act from the love you feel for them and not the anger you feel against those who have taken them.

Love is true and will keep you going, but anger and hate will twist and warp you into a creature which you and your child will never recognize. When Emily Rose and I are reunited, she is going to see her daddy and she will see how much I love you - she will never see an angry man.

For those in America who have been frustrated at how slow things have been for David and Sean Goldman - the legal machinations and the endless appeals - it took 5 years for a trial in America only for the judge to say he doesn't do the Hague Convention and today, 13 months have elapsed since the filing of the first Appeal which has still not been heard.

If it wasn't for so many Americans who have helped along the way, I wouldn't be where I am today on this road, but then again, if it was not for the American authorities and people like Barbara Greig, Leslie Merriam, Judge Doyle and Paul Swindell, I wouldn't be on this road at all.

Seven long years - how much longer before America steps up to the plate and does the right thing?

WI Police Report - Emily Removed from UK by US Embassy & State Department

2010-01-05T21:48:00.001Z

Christmas Day 2010: Sean Goldman Home, Thousands More To Go

2009-12-25T10:41:00.016Z

Christmas Day is always a bitter-sweet affair for me: I see my children as I have done this morning, but thoughts of Emily are inescapable.

Emily and I have had one Christmas together - her first Christmas before she was taken 14 short days later.

Happy Christmas Emily Rose - Daddy loves you darling ;)

Yesterday, I received a call from Robert Skelton in Florida with the news that Sean Goldman had been handed over at the US Consulate and by now is back in the US with his dad, David Goldman.

That is news beyond many parents fantasies. Good luck to both of them with their new life together and I wish them happiness as they catch up with each other for the stolen years taken from them.

A sweet development but for the bitterness.

Why be bitter? Sean is home, David Goldman has succeeded where so many have failed?

I feel bitterness because of the following, many of whom I have come to know personally and consider as friends:

Carlos Bermudez and his son Sage (in Mexico)

Ariel Ayubo and his son, Lorenzo (Brazil)

Tim Weinstein and his children (in Brazil)

Rob Skelton and his daughter, Marissa Joy Kvistad (somewhere in Europe probably)

Martin Boyle and his daughter, Rebecca (in Brazil)

Mayra Elsafi and her children Tariq & Sarah (thought to be in Sudan)

Ken Thompson and his son, Andrew (probably in Germany)

Michael Shannon and his children (in Egypt)

Devan Davenport and Nadia (in Brazil)

Larry Synclair and his son, Larry Jr. (in Russia)

Joseph Cannon and his daughter, Shelby (in the UK)

Sean Goldman To Remain In Brazil

2009-12-17T22:19:00.003Z

Brazil's Supreme Court has stayed the Appeal Ruling won by David Goldman, 3-0 and Sean Goldman will now have to remain in Brazil until his testimony can be heard.

David Goldman flew to Brazil yesterday with Congressman Smith in anticipation of collecting Sean and returning with him to their home in New Jersey. The step-father and the boy's Brazilian family have appealed that court ruling and it is now likely that Sean will have to remain in Brazil at least until February when his testimony will be heard.

Sean and David Goldman have not seen each other since June last year; on the other hand, Emily and I have not seen each other since March and David is getting court time far faster in Brazil than I am in Florida - the Appeal for Emily is still waiting to be set for oral argument and the calendar has been booked through to March 2010 (without us on it).

My heart goes out to both of them nevertheless.

Good luck guys.

David Goldman Wins Appeal Before Brazilian Court 3-0 - Sean to be Returned by Friday

2009-12-16T21:55:00.002Z

David Goldman has won a federal appeal before a Brazilian court comprising three judges - the verdict was unanimous.

The order involves Sean being home in New Jersey by Friday, but...

His step-father and family have filed yet another appeal.

This is exactly the kind of delaying tactics which need to be stopped - not just in Brazil, but anywhere.

If the ruling is there is no jurisdiction - the domestic legal process should then be stopped immediately - no jurisdiction means no more!

The MSNBC piece on this can be found by following the David Goldman link.

Arrest Warrant Issued by Florida Judge for Emily's Dad on Stalking from 1,000 miles

2009-10-08T17:26:00.016+01:00

I returned to the UK from the US on 22nd September as the US Department of Homeland Security would not extend my visa despite the appeal process pending in Florida.

I get home to find that the new husband of my ex, Emily's mom, had filed stalking charges against me because Patsy and I had complained to the police of his threats to the pair of us and him claiming to be a cop.

The result was that despite not being served, there was an arraignment hearing on October 2nd in Panama City before His Honor Judge Shane Vann.

I faxed the judge on October 1st to advise His Honor that I was in the UK, had not been served and in any event could not possibly attend because I was overseas.

I copied in the family court judge, His Honor Judge Rowe in DeLand, Volusia County for good measure - I checked with the online system - "No action per Judge"

The result is that Judge Vann has issued an arrest warrant for me because I failed to appear.

The stalking charges have been filed by Paul Swindell, Sheila's new husband - no stranger to the wrong side of law enforcement with an arrest record for assault and battery on several occasions as well as grand theft, not to mention he was arrested for beating his former wife who also had to obtain a protection order to stop him and which the court was convinced, she needed.

He claims I have followed him continuously since April 2009.

Yet, with the sole exception of the Spring Break visitation, I have not been within 500 miles of Panama City.

Paul Swindell claims I have his home under observation and tracked him down.

His wife filed a change of address with the court which is how I was notified of the address.

He claims I have tried to have him fired from his job.

Until he filed these ridiculous charges, I did not know where he worked.

Now, call me cynical but what do you think the odds are that as I am told to leave the US by Immigration, a local police department (Panama City PD) with whom Paul Swindell has connections, should file stalking charges against a man who lives 1,000 miles away and now, 4,000 miles away?

What do you think the odds are that this happens just as we come to the end of the appeals process in Florida?

Answers in an email please but if anyone has a defense attorney willing to represent me pro bono, I'd be very grateful for the referral.

The Avoidable Case Of Christopher Savoie

2009-10-05T12:24:00.004+01:00

Ken Connolly is the author of Throwing Stones and an exceptionally special individual not least because he gives insight into what it is like to be a child subjected to abduction - Ken and his brother were abducted as children by their father in the 70's.

Ken has been tireless in his work aimed at enlightening and educating law enforcement, legislators, the judiciary and the public at large on what it means to be abducted as a child.

The Avoidable Case Of Christopher Savoie

This past week in Japan an American father was forced to take action in order to regain his abducted children. Christopher Savoie, a law abiding citizen was apprehended outside of the United States Consulate while trying to enter with his children. The local police placed Christopher in jail on the charge of child abduction. What is most disturbing is that Christopher was attempting to return his children after they were abducted by their biological
mother against a United States court order keeping them in the United States.

Japanese law is not a co-signer to the 1980 Hague Convention on international parental child abduction. Under this confusing, and often webbed convention, the home state has jurisdiction on child custody issues. If a child is taken to another state, that state has an obligation to return the child. Since Japan does not recognize this convention, it allows an open door policy of stealing children to Japan, as long as the parent is a Japanese citizen.

On the other hand, if a child is taken to the United States, Japan is quick to request the child returned. Since Japan has close ties to the United States, this indifference is often overlooked. This unbalanced system of international cooperation has created the picture definition of forum shopping. Basically, if you don’t like the court outcome, move somewhere where you will get the outcome you want.

What must be understood is that Japan is not the only nation to overlook illegal retention of a child against a sovereign state’s right of custody. However what is important here is that there are numerous cases of non custodial parents who have taken their children to Japan and been given protection. What Christopher’s case shows is that if you try to retain your children, you will be locked up, and charged with the very crime that allowed the non custodial parent to enter Japan. So where did all of this start?

Back in January Christopher Savoie was in divorce court from his ex-wife a Japanese citizen. His wife agreed to live within the boundaries of the court ruling. Simply, she needed only to have them back in time for school. Mr. Savoie raised concerns that his ex-wife would try to take the children to Japan. His concerns were overlooked and as a result of poor judgment, his ex-wife was able to secret his children off to Japan. When Christopher discovered what had happened, a warrant was issued in the United States for the mother’s arrest.

Japan has a history of favoring mothers as the sole conservator of small children in divorce cases. What is different in Japan is that when the other parent loses custody, they are completely severed from their children. Given the Japanese family court system, it only promotes cases like Christopher Savoie. What is still often overlooked in these type cases is the children, and the affect it has on them. While the parents, courts and officials slug it out, the children sit quietly behind the scenes falling apart internally.

As a former abducted child and author on parental child abduction I know exactly how these little children feel and what they are going through. For three years I was abducted by my father and lived in two states. On more than one occasion my father considered moving to Australia. There was the constant fear of being uprooted in the middle of the night and whisked away because the feds were closing in on my dad. On more than one occasion I would wake to the shouts of my father, and cries from my fellow kidnapped siblings.

When asked how long it took to become confused and protect my abductor, I often answer within just weeks of the initial kidnapping. What must be understood is that a child unlike their adult counterpart, cannot reason between the crime and the misguided love of their parent. They do not see an outcome where they will be reunited if they go to the police or make a public plea for help. Their circumstance is just life as they know it. When returned home they are confused even further over the ordeal.

What can make the child’s experience worse is when the abducting parent denies communication with the other parent, and tries to distort their view of the other parent. For me, I can see this as the main cause for Christopher’s son freezing in the street, and not following his father, and sister to the United States Consulate. After his father has been apprehended, the abducting parent can then use her son’s confusion as a viable argument in court. Sadly, this is not due to his father being unfit, but from the abducting mother’s grooming of her child.

What should be taken from this is that Christopher and his children’s ordeal could have been avoided back in Tennessee during the divorce proceedings. The judge was fully informed of Mr. Savoie’s concerns, and history of Japan allowing non custodial parents to abduct their children. Next, if Japan wants equal international rights for children taken abroad, maybe they should change their policy, and join the Hague Convention of 1980, or suffer the same results they inflict upon other State’s custodial rights. Lastly, the effect parental abduction has upon the children involved can have greater impact than stranger based abduction; since the loss of trust is so great.

Ken Connelly is an author, speaker, former law enforcement officer and victim of parental child abduction. His book, Throwing Stones; Parental Child Abduction
Through The Eyes Of A Child, is the first book written from the child’s point of
view during an abduction.

Ken Connelly Author/Speaker Throwing Stones; parental child abduction through the eyes of a child 214 364 4181 iPhone mobile

www.ThrowingStones@ymail.com http://www.facebook.com/l/e8785;www.authorsden.com/kennethdconnelly http://www.facebook.com/l/e8785;www.myspace.com/ThrowingStonesBook

Judge Doyle Steps Down in Foreclosure Case Amidst "Racist" Comments

2009-09-01T21:37:00.005+01:00

The Florida judge who let Emily go blind and claims "In this County we're provincials. We don't do the Hague Convention!" [international law for non-child abduction readers] has found himself in the spotlight yet again.

Judge Doyle has recused himself from a foreclosure case after it was claimed he made "inferences of a racial or ethnic bias" against an attorney, Farzad Milani, reports Jay Stapleton of the Daytona Beach Journal.

Judge Doyle told attorney Farzad Milani, "that he would not do his work while (Milani) sits in his office in Fort Lauderdale smoking his Cohiba cigars and drinking his lattes," according to court records. This isn't racist but then I understand the motion filed in the 5th District Court of Appeal in Daytona contains the juicy aspects of the alleged bad behavior. It certainly persuaded Judge Doyle to step down when they filed in the Appeal Court but let's wait and see.

Judge Doyle's nickname amongst local attorneys is "Wildman" Doyle; whether the claims are true or not, Judge Doyle just can't seem to keep himself out of the local news for one reason or another ... and none of them are good!

Less than a month ago, Judge Doyle ignored the Federal Loan Modification Program, the lending bank and the homeowner, all of whom agreed the foreclosure was not to go ahead - "Motion Denied" says Judge Doyle and the house was sold from under the family despite paying as required (as reported by Channel 9's Jason Allen link for this TV slot is here)