Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > General Chat

General Chat This forum is for discussing anything that doesn't fit into another forum, or for discussing things that are off topic, or just for general venting.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 09-11-2012, 02:14 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. ]
  #32  
Old 09-11-2012, 03:34 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,021
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WorkingDAD View Post
I watched it ...

Here is some interesting part from actual article...(emphasis are added)
Excellent find in the article provided. There are known patterns of behaviour for abducting parents. One of them is to make false allegations of intimate partner abuse, repeat this conduct continually after a finding if false allegations is made, escalate this conduct involving any service (CAS, police, et all...) in trying to further their distortion campaign against the targeted parent and... when no one "believes" their story, even when found to be false by the judicial system, then may abduct the child/ren.

California now has the tools to assist parents and Justices to prevent things from escalating and for children leaving the domain and control of the court making the order for custody.

Hopefully, with Stephen's efforts and the support of others and emerging and future case law, more improvements at minimum in Ontario could be put in place to prevent this from happening.

Good Luck!
Tayken
  #33  
Old 09-11-2012, 08:03 PM
StephenWatkins StephenWatkins is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 43
StephenWatkins is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
Hi All,
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
Tayken - You are absolutely correct in your reasoning as the law act we are suggesting can be used at a REGIONAL, PROVINCIAL and in INTERNATIONAL cases.

We have selected the law name, " iCHAPEAU", as part of its meaning relays to ensuring children don't get abducted:

International Child Harboring & Abduction Prevention Enforcement Act Under-Law

If there is a threat that your child will be abducted in any case, even locally, the Judge can impose requirements to make sure they don't disappear. We are NOT leaving it to the Judges to decide what to do - we are outlining exactly what steps should be taken and when these should be enacted.

You can say we are tired of leaving it to the discretion of the family Judges as they don't seem to ensure the safety of children nor do they enforce their own rulings. A 17 point Judges check list is part of the law process.
  #34  
Old 09-11-2012, 09:07 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,021
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenWatkins View Post
Tayken - You are absolutely correct in your reasoning as the law act we are suggesting can be used at a REGIONAL, PROVINCIAL and in INTERNATIONAL cases.

We have selected the law name, " iCHAPEAU", as part of its meaning relays to ensuring children don't get abducted:

International Child Harboring & Abduction Prevention Enforcement Act Under-Law

If there is a threat that your child will be abducted in any case, even locally, the Judge can impose requirements to make sure they don't disappear. We are NOT leaving it to the Judges to decide what to do - we are outlining exactly what steps should be taken and when these should be enacted.
To "prevent" child abductions for many parents in regional, jurisdictional and international prior to the involvement of the courts, the Children's Law Reform Act of Ontario ("CLRA") (and the other similar legislation) in the provincial legislation need to be hardened significantly. Often, the courts are not even involved when children are removed in contravention of section 283.(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Often, the abducting parent flies into court with affidavit in hand on an "emergency" ex-party motion in an attempt to "gain control" over the other parent.

Lawyers, police, health care workers (including the CAS), shelter workers, teachers, et all... Need in my opinion to know the 17 points of the check list to parental abductions.

Often, in regional/jurisdictional (also known as "forum shopping") children are abducted to create an improper "status quo". Even if the children do not leave their habitual jurisdiction or are just taken to a local "shelter" on false pretenses it should be considered "abduction" under 283.(1) of the CCC.

The harboring of a child without consent or a court order from another parent should be acted on as a criminal act, especially if the act was done to create a false "status quo" before the courts.

In my opinion, until there are provisions that have hard requirements to determine when a child can be removed from their habitual residence that can be done by law enforcement/Children's Aid Society abduction will be white washed by the court as a "mistake" by parents who try to "win" an improper "status quo" by doing so before the courts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenWatkins View Post
You can say we are tired of leaving it to the discretion of the family Judges as they don't seem to ensure the safety of children nor do they enforce their own rulings. A 17 point Judges check list is part of the law process.
Evolution in case law may solve that in the near future for which parents can leverage as part of the public court system and reporting in CanLII.

Good Luck!
Tayken
  #35  
Old 09-12-2012, 08:53 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,021
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenWatkins View Post
You can say we are tired of leaving it to the discretion of the family Judges as they don't seem to ensure the safety of children nor do they enforce their own rulings. A 17 point Judges check list is part of the law process.
Hi Stephen,

Is it possible for you to post the "17 point Judicial check list" to this site in a new thread? I would recommend that the posting be specifically the 17 point check list and please include references to the Act for which you are proposing and links to any relevant and additional materials (or posting of) the proposed Act.

It would be very helpful possibly for parents, who are faced with a similar situation, to be able to present the "check list" as evidence attached to their affidavit materials which would be reviewed by a judge.

Your story carries a lot of weight in the media and the court rooms today in my opinion and it would be helpful for your efforts if parents were made aware and brought forward a request for the judge in their matter to consider the "check list".

Thank-you,
Tayken
  #36  
Old 09-12-2012, 12:03 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,021
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

  #37  
Old 09-12-2012, 12:26 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 Stephen,

Is it possible for you to post the "17 point Judicial check list" to this site in a new thread? I would recommend that the posting be specifically the 17 point check list and please include references to the Act for which you are proposing and links to any relevant and additional materials (or posting of) the proposed Act.

It would be very helpful possibly for parents, who are faced with a similar situation, to be able to present the "check list" as evidence attached to their affidavit materials which would be reviewed by a judge.

Your story carries a lot of weight in the media and the court rooms today in my opinion and it would be helpful for your efforts if parents were made aware and brought forward a request for the judge in their matter to consider the "check list".

Thank-you,
Tayken
I do not know is it the same points but came across this list from www.MissingKids.ca

Indicators of Risk for Parental Child Abduction
There are many indicators that could suggest a parent is planning an abduction. Below is a list of indicators, but remember, the presence of one or more indicators does not mean that parental child abduction will occur, and the absence of one or more indicators does not mean parental child abduction will not occur. You must always use common sense when assessing risk, keeping in mind what you know about your ex-partner, your child, and your relationship. Keeping this in mind, the following are some factors common to parental abductions to consider when assessing risk:
  • Your ex-partner has previously abducted your child.
  • Direct or indirect threats have been made in the past about removal of your child.
  • Your ex-partner has made direct/indirect threats of harm to you, your child, or themselves.
  • Your ex-partner has a history of controlling and/or violent behaviour.
  • Your ex-partner shows high levels of hostility, anger or resentment towards you or your family.
  • You and the other parent fight a lot, particularly regarding custody/access/parenting.
  • Your ex-partner has family or other connections in another country and may have an interest in returning.
  • Your child has made comments that concern you such as, “Dad/Mom says we’re going to go live somewhere warm,” or “Mom/Dad says we’re going to be moving soon.”
  • Your ex-partner has made significant life changes including quitting a job, or selling a home.
  • Your ex-partner has no job, could work anywhere, or is financially independent – in other words, is not tied to the area for financial reasons.
  • Your ex-partner continually raises unreasonable concerns about your child’s safety and well-being while in your care.
  • There has been a family court decision that your ex-partner is angry about.
    Note: Emotions may run high for the period immediately after such a decision and may increase the risk of parental abduction.
  • Your ex-partner has terminated a lease, closed bank accounts, liquidated assets, hid or destroyed documents, applied for a passport and/or visa, applied for birth certificates, applied for school or medical records, purchased airline tickets for your child, or altered their appearance.
  • Your ex-partner starts displaying stalking/harassing and obsessive behaviour (for example showing up at school or lessons, constant phone calls/text messages or other online communications, etc.)
  #38  
Old 09-12-2012, 07:07 PM
StephenWatkins StephenWatkins is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 43
StephenWatkins is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
Is it possible for you to post the "17 point Judicial check list" to this site in a new thread? I would recommend that the posting be specifically the 17 point check list and please include references to the Act for which you are proposing and links to any relevant and additional materials (or posting of) the proposed Act.

It would be very helpful possibly for parents, who are faced with a similar situation, to be able to present the "check list" as evidence attached to their affidavit materials which would be reviewed by a judge.

Your story carries a lot of weight in the media and the court rooms today in my opinion and it would be helpful for your efforts if parents were made aware and brought forward a request for the judge in their matter to consider the "check list".
Thank-you,
Tayken
As per your comment and the comment after by another member about the points from MissingKids.ca . It's one thing to have a list of suggestions to watch out, which I myself, I have contributed to the staff of the Canadian Center for Child Protection with my own case which operates the MissingKids.ca, but do judges really take notice here in Canada? In my opinion, through my own case, I don't think every Family Judge is aware or all have had training to spot these which was listed above.

That is why the Florida and California legislators have made a Judges Check List that is part of the proceedings when children are at risk of an abduction.

I might have made a mistake of being 17 points - as Florida and California may have different versions of this check list. The California law is based from the Florida law but more comprehensive.

I will provide you a link here for the forms to California Check List which you can see as it is an online PDF form.

Here is the Link to the CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION ORDER - FL-341(B). Child Custody and Visitation Order Attachment - FL 341b Form:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/fl341b.pdf

As part of the iCHAPEAU Act, we are trying to suggest, we would like a similar check list utilized by our Canadian Judges.

The proposed federal law called - CANADA's " iCHAPEAU " ACT - which stands for the: International Child Harbouring & Abduction Prevention Enforcement Act Under-Law - would be made up of suggestions from Canadian parents and an amalgamation of several US laws being passed or already passed in the United States.

These are:
- US FEDERAL LAW - LAW HR1940, David Goldman
(2nd Reading of Congress completed)

- US FEDERAL LAW - Prevent Departure Program (PIPCA) (PASSED)
- California LAW - SB1206, Randy Collins(PASSED)
- California LAW - FL 341b Form (Judges Check List) (PASSED)
- Florida LAW - Child Abduction Prevention Act (CAPA), Carolyn Ann Vlk
(PASSED)

Due to the fact that Canada may be 10 years behind in creation of laws to prevent child abductions from Canada, we need to take all the work and efforts by other parents dealing with international child abductions of their own children and keep the momentum going here in Canada to mirror US laws.

Obviously, we have to make these work with our own Family Civil and Criminal Court laws here in Canada to make them apply.

We are not keeping secret where we are getting our law ideas from as I believe it is easier for Canada and the Canadian Government to adopt laws already utilized from the US to make them a North American initiative and to get also support from others who have helped create these ideas.

This may be an example:
Senator Mimi Walters wrote on her Facebook Wall on august 20th:
“SB 1206 Keisuke (or Case-K's) Law was approved by the Assembly 70-0, to attempt to prevent child abduction to foreign countries.”

Even Australia as adopted some of these ideas even though their laws are not as tough as Canadian laws.

Most of the law ideas and co-authors have been coming from parents whose children have been abducted. Like myself, I believe its due to the fact that if we leave it to government legislators, they will take "Band Aid" approaches to give the public a false sense of security.

As parents dealing with a Missing / Abducted child, we can see through those ideas which we already know would have NOT actually helped or stop our children from an abduction. I think is because the government legislators don't look at the big picture or rely to much on other social systems / other ministries to catch cases.

In my case, the Canadian Government cancelled by ex-wife's Canadian Passport 42-days before my sons international child abduction. This was confirmed by the Ontario government and by the Ombudsman of Passport Canada. That did not stop my ex-wife from driving over into the US with our children one weekend and getting on a plane and entering Germany. To this day, there is STILL NO WAY of stopping a similar incident as the US and CANADA do not share passport information and people are FREE to leave their own country without any security checks. They DO however share the NCIC database which could prove useful and being already being utilized in the US "Prevent Departure Program". Airlines DON'T check to see if your passport are valid as they are private companies and have NO ACCESS to sensitive passport information by any country.

The courts themselves are the first line of defence to stopping a possible abduction so providing them real world solutions and enforcement measures that actually work, is everyone's best interest.

Like our iCHAPEAU slogan states:

"One voice may sound like a whisper but thousands of voices sound like a roar"

Until our website is ready…
I want to thank you for all your support and suggestions. I will refer back to this forum for your questions and suggestions as I know I have not answered all of them. It will be slow to answer them as I am not a lawyer and our group of parents are still searching for legal assistance to make all of this happen.

If you can make other Canadian lawyers know of our efforts, it would be greatly appreciated. We have yet to get a response back from the letters we have sent to Canadian law firms and lawyers to support our cause.

If there are other parents who want their Provincial / International abduction cases publicised, please contact us here: Info@iCHAPEAU.ca

We will be publishing our members cases and partners in the iCHAPEAU website.

Your forum is providing us valuable feedback and we will make every attempt to answer your questions here and to raise them ALSO on our FAQ page on the iCHAPEAU website which we are building.
  #39  
Old 09-12-2012, 07:39 PM
murphyslaw murphyslaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: 2 miles south, of the middle of nowhere
Posts: 500
murphyslaw is on a distinguished road
Default

[
  • Your ex-partner has previously abducted your child.
  • Direct or indirect threats have been made in the past about removal of your child.
  • Your ex-partner has made direct/indirect threats of harm to you, your child, or themselves.
  • Your ex-partner has a history of controlling and/or violent behaviour.
  • Your ex-partner shows high levels of hostility, anger or resentment towards you or your family.
  • You and the other parent fight a lot, particularly regarding custody/access/parenting.
  • Your ex-partner has family or other connections in another country and may have an interest in returning.
  • Your child has made comments that concern you such as, “Dad/Mom says we’re going to go live somewhere warm,” or “Mom/Dad says we’re going to be moving soon.”
  • Your ex-partner has made significant life changes including quitting a job, or selling a home.
  • Your ex-partner has no job, could work anywhere, or is financially independent – in other words, is not tied to the area for financial reasons.
  • Your ex-partner continually raises unreasonable concerns about your child’s safety and well-being while in your care.
  • There has been a family court decision that your ex-partner is angry about.
    Note: Emotions may run high for the period immediately after such a decision and may increase the risk of parental abduction.
  • Your ex-partner has terminated a lease, closed bank accounts, liquidated assets, hid or destroyed documents, applied for a passport and/or visa, applied for birth certificates, applied for school or medical records, purchased airline tickets for your child, or altered their appearance.
  • Your ex-partner starts displaying stalking/harassing and obsessive behaviour (for example showing up at school or lessons, constant phone calls/text messages or other online communications, etc.)
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm I got 12,but this isnt news for me I have been aware for some time.
  #40  
Old 10-22-2012, 11:56 AM
StephenWatkins StephenWatkins is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 43
StephenWatkins is on a distinguished road
Default

(AS REQUESTED - Court TRANSCRIPTS included in the Press Release)


(-PRESS RELEASE-)
October 22, 2012

SENTENCING DAY - Grandfather Guilty Of Aiding Canadian Abduction in “Watkins Missing Children” Case

On October 24, 2012 the Honorable Justice J.F. KENKEL will hear victim impact statements from family members before he announces Tadeusz Ustaszewski fate.

On August 23, 2012 the Honorable Justice J.F. KENKEL made some validating remarks on passing his judgment of a GUILTY verdict on the grandfather, Tadeusz Ustaszewski, in the International Parental Child Abduction case of the “Watkins Missing Children” in the Criminal Courts in Newmarket, Ontario which may result in some action by the Prime Minister of Canada.

On May 15, 2012, in a press conference with the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of Poland on Canadian national news, the media asked questions to the Prime Minister of Canada on how he will help a Canadian father return his Canadian abducted children taken to Poland?

The Prime Minister of Canada, STEPHEN HARPER, replied the following as part of his statement: "… the matter is before the courts..."
(SEE VIDEO LINK BELOW)

The international child abduction of the Watkins boys from Canada is no longer just an allegation; it has now been validated by the Canadian Criminal Courts and an Ontario Judge that in fact a crime has been committed.

ALEXANDER WATKINS (aka: Alek Ustaszewski) and CHRISTOPHER WATKINS (aka: Krzysztof Ustaszewski) also known world-wide through social media as the "Watkins Missing Children" from Canada were abducted internationally from Canada into the United States then to Europe on March 6, 2009 with the use of a "Cancelled" Canadian Passport by the non-custodial Mother, Edyta ( Ustaszewski / Ustaszewska ) Watkins, and two Canadian Passports for the children where she refused to turn over to the Ontario Courts who ordered their return on multiple court appearances. U.S. Homeland Security confirmed with Canadian Authorities that all three flew using 3-Canadian Passports.

The boys lived with their father, Stephen Watkins, full time since 2007 after they had been apprehended by the Children’s Aid Society and the Ontario Courts in 2007 after reports were made by the teachers of the children’s school of serious child protection concerns. The children were internationally abducted out of Canada 6-weeks after the courts January 26, 2009 custody ruling during a weekend access visit with their mother. Both Alexander and Christopher were born in Canada and their father, Stephen Watkins, was granted sole custody by the Ontario Courts in January 26, 2009 after a 7-day trial with liberal access visits ordered every second weekend to their mother.

Their grandfather, Tadeusz (TED) Ustaszewski, in Canada was charged by York Regional Police (YRP) in Ontario with assisting in this International Child Abduction and the children's disappearance. He solely picked up the boys at their schools in Newmarket for a supervised weekend visit with their non-custodial mother but instead drove all of them across into the United States and left them at a U.S. Tim Horton's coffee shop before returning alone to Canada. The boys were to be brought back to their school in Newmarket, Ontario the next day as he had previously done many times before.

In statements taken from court transcripts, the Honorable Justice J.F. KENKEL noted that,
“Aside from Mr. Ustaszewski's statements there is a strong circumstantial case indicating that Mr. Ustaszewski was a knowing party to the abduction.”

He also made mention in ruling of the allegations made by the grandfather to police which also resonates by statements made the abducting mother through social media that,
“There is no credible evidence that Mr. Watkins abused his children in any way. The suggestion of abuse made by Mr. Ustaszewski in his witness statement to police was shown by other evidence at trial to be a fabrication.”

In conclusion, the Honorable Justice J.F. KENKEL made these final remarks,
“I find that the Crown has proved that Edyta Ustaszewski abducted her two children in contravention of an order made by Madam Justice Waldman of the Ontario Court of Justice, and further that Mr. Tadeusz Ustaszewski aided her in that regard knowing that the removal of the children from Canada was meant to deprive the father of custody and knowing that act was contrary to the terms of Justice Waldman's order. I can find no credible evidence which leaves a reasonable doubt with respect to any element of the section 282(1) offence alleged… There will be a finding of guilt.”
(DOWNLOAD THE FULL TRANSCRIPTS BELOW)

The Watkins boys have been ordered to remain in Poland by the Polish Courts in what Stephen Watkins believes is the Polish courts failings to follow 5-international treaties between Canada and Poland including the Hague Convention On The Civil Aspects Of International Child Abduction and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). It seems that the Polish Courts have made Poland a non-compliant signatory of various treaties for years making Poland a “Black Hole of International Child Abductions in Europe”.

To make matters worse, while the boys were in hiding for 2.5 years without the knowledge of their father or the Canadian Authorities, they were secretly enrolled into a Polish School in 2010 with alias names without the knowledge by Polish Police authorities even though another Polish Court ordered in January 8, 2010 for Polish Police to search Poland-wide for the missing Canadian boys. In mid 2010, the Polish School witnessed child protection concerns and brought a court action themselves against the mother in the Polish Courts where her parental rights were ordered “Limited” by the Courts.

The Father Stephen Watkins is now appealing the decision a third time in the Superior Courts of Poland to have his children retuned home to Canada.

While sentencing is scheduled on October 24, 2012 where victim impact statements will be heard, a group of parents whose children have also been internationally abducted from Canada to different countries along with Stephen Watkins will be at the Newmarket Courts in Ontario introducing / petitioning a new Federal Canadian Law called the: iCHAPEAU Act.

The “ iCHAPEAU ” stands for the “ International Child Harbouring & Abduction Prevention Enforcement Act Under-Law ”

These 4 affected Canadian parents who cases are public, including Stephen Watkins case, represents 7 abducted Canadian children who have been illegally kidnapped from Canada and harboured by other non-compliant nations such as Poland, Brazil and Japan. These parents are working together to help STOP Parental Child abductions by campaigning for Canada’s iCHAPEAU Act to provide better tools to Family Courts to detect and PREVENT child abduction cases along with giving our Canadian government more solutions when dealing with international child abductions when Canadian children have been retained or harboured by foreign nations and ordered not to be retuned through the non-compliances of treaties already signed with the country of Canada.

Along with an explanation of how the iCHAPEAU law works, the iCHAPEAU Association will have all their members’ cases publicly shown to bring more attention to their cases along with the issues of Parental Child Abductions which affects 83% of all child abductions from Canada. Help by sharing their links on their Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/iCHAPEAU or visit their Mobile website here ichapeau's QR code leaf on uQR.me - Create and manage your recyclable QR codes for free! .

Help iCHAPEAU Association bring Stephen Watkins two little boys back home along with helping other Canadian parents bring home their 7 abducted Canadian children back home to Canada.

"No parent should have to work this hard to get their missing or abducted children back home" ~ Stephen Watkins



Ontario Court Of Justice JUDGMENT for Tadeusz Ustaszewski (August 23, 2012)
COURT TRANSCRIPTS DOWNLOAD:
http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/4816...23-2012-c?da=y

Grandfather guilty of aiding abduction - Toronto Star - Published on August 23, 2012
ARTICLE:
Grandfather guilty of aiding abduction - thestar.com

Watkins Missing Children - International Child Abduction Question - Prime Ministers of Canada / Poland
VIDEO:
Watkins Children - International Child Abduction Question - Prime Ministers of Canada / Poland - YouTube


Follow “Watkins Missing Children” case here:
FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/Watkins.Missing.Children
YOUTUBE: Stephen Watkins - YouTube
TWITTER: https://twitter.com/Child_Abduction (@Child_Abduction)
WEBSITE: ALERT ! - ABDUCTED MISSING CHILDREN : Alexander Watkins & Christopher Watkins


If your Child has been abducted within CANADA -or- from CANADA to another country, contact the iCHAPEAU Association.

Canada’s iCHAPEAU Association
Please JOIN, LIKE and SUBSCRIBE to help share the iCHAPEAU cause:
FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/iCHAPEAU
YOUTUBE: iCHAPEAU - YouTube
TWITTER: https://twitter.com/iCHAPEAU_Law (@iCHAPEAU_Law)
MOBILE: ichapeau's QR code leaf on uQR.me - Create and manage your recyclable QR codes for free!
WEBSITE: www.ichapeau.ca (Under Construction)
EMAIL: Info@iCHAPEAU.ca
Closed Thread

Tags
abduction, child, children, missing, watkins


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Divorce Law are a Joke and Dads are the Punch Line Decent Dad Political Issues 389 11-03-2012 05:45 PM
Joint Physical Custody: Smart Solution or Problematic Plan? WorkingDAD Parenting Issues 19 09-17-2012 07:38 AM
Divorcing Well SigRent Parenting Issues 2 05-06-2010 10:02 PM
Second children are "invisible" got2bkid Divorce & Family Law 17 06-25-2008 06:41 PM
Maybe the time has come to formalize?? mom22galz Parenting Issues 12 03-24-2007 10:46 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:46 PM.