View Single Post
  #31  
Old 09-11-2012, 01:14 PM
WorkingDAD WorkingDAD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,660
WorkingDAD is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
Hi All,

I highly recommend everyone who's children have been removed in contravention of Section 283.(1) and 282.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada view the video in this article in full.

Defiance of the Court: New Japanese Parental Abduction from Seattle Demonstrates the Need for New Preventive Regulation (Keisuke’s Law) | For Rui Boy

Parents, who have abducted their children in contravention of these laws should also view this video. Any parent, who's children are abducted through false hood and lies, even with "police assistance" (false allegations) need to view this material as well.

What Stephen is bringing forward is not just an "international" challenge. Parents are removing children, without consent or a court order and attempting to use "emergency" ex-party motions wrongfully to gain temporary custody and limited access to the other parent. (See Shaw v. Shaw as a concrete example and other threads on this site.)

Good Luck!
Tayken
I watched it ...

Here is some interesting part from actual article...(emphasis are added)

Quote:
[Additional background to the case: the story follows a familiar pattern. In this instance, Ryoko Fukuda, the Japanese mother, made a charge of domestic violence and swore out an order of protection to keep the father, Arnold-Carlo Delizo away from his child.Upon investigation, the court found this charge of violence to be false and ordered a shared residential schedule and parenting plan for the child to divide time between both parents. Although Fukuda claimed that the father "chose not to see his child," the court found that "Fukuda withheld the child from Delizo for a protracted time without just cause.” Fukuda contended that the final residential schedule was "outside the bounds of reasonable choices. In particular, she objected to….joint decision making.” A father actually having a part in decisions regarding his child is outside the bounds of reasonable choice according to this mother. One find this to be a typical part of the abductors' mentality in nearly every case. ]