Showing posts with label international child abduction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label international child abduction. Show all posts

Friday, April 22, 2011

Martin Boyle in Brazil: Carnival of Despair

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.

Monday, April 11, 2011

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

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.





Sunday, March 20, 2011

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

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.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

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

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

Thursday, March 03, 2011

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

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.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

ABC News on Abductions to Japan

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.

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Emily Koyama - a Perverse Twist

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.

Saturday, February 05, 2011

Emily Koyama - Mother Claims Domestic Violence

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.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

FL Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Emily's Case

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).


Saturday, June 05, 2010

Appeal to the Supreme Court of Florida

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

14th 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 (11th 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:

· 14th 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 14th 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 5th DCA decision further directly conflicts with DeClaire v Yohanan (453 So.2d 375).

2. The decision of the 5th 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 5th 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 5th 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) 14th 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 5th 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 3rd, 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 (11th 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 5th 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 5th 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 1st, 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 7th, 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 14th, 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 19th, 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 5th, 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 20th, 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 28th 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 13th, 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 28th, 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).