Author Topic: Singapore Consulate will Issue Passports to children already abducted once (Read 4707 times)

Andrew · « **on:** May 21, 2014, 01:56:20 PM »

Hello and here is an update on Christopher and William Ko who were abducted to Singapore but returned after 18 months.

Their mother Yu Xin Mei Wang is going back to court tomorrow with a new motion to allow her to have unsupervised visitation outside of a visitation center, include her Singapore relatives in visitation, and allow her to have the children's school, medical and dental records.

Attached are 2 emails from Ms. Janet Chua at the Singapore Consulate in San Francisco. They know about the abduction and return of the children from Singapore yet they confirm the mother can renew or apply for new passports for the children. Then they add that there is nothing they can do to deny the boys passports as they are "entitled." That is what another Consular staff Lea Chan told me in Sep2009 when we were looking for the boys and found out they had new Singapore passports. Lea Chan told me the same thing that "they are entitled to Singapore passports" and US laws on dual parental consent does not apply to them.

Now that they know the boys' country of habitual residence is the US one would think they would commit to not issuing new passports for the boys. Just incredible.

NCMEC provided me an updated Affidavit on abduction risks and stated that Singapore is now part of the Hague Convention since May 2012 but there are still 4 cases of children abducted to Singapore that are more than 2 years old where the children have not been returned.

Send the idiots at the Singapore Consulate and email and ask them why they will still issue passports to children already abducted once using Singapore passports!

We should stop using taxpayer dollars to train Singapore F18 pilots at Luke AFB Arizona and BlackHawk pilots at Mountain Home AFB Idaho until Singapore takes child abduction seriously and considers it a crime. Singapore always tells other nations they don't have to agree with their laws but only have to respect them. Well, it goes both ways.

Andrew · « **Reply #1 on:** August 21, 2014, 04:25:44 PM »

Here is an update on the latest with the Ko Brothers and their mother the Taking Parent.

At the May 22, 2014 hearing in Dept 81 of the Los Angeles Superior Court, the Judge denied the mother's request for joint custody. She stated in her request and Declaration that the reason for joint custody is so that she can take the boys for a haircut, buy them clothes and give them a facial for their teenage acne. She filed 3 Declarations for one request and one of the declarations she stated she needed custody so she can communicate with Singapore about the boys' military service.

The Judge also denied her request to have visitations outside the supervised visitation center. Judge stated in the Minute Order that "there is substantial evidence that respondent poses abduction risk." After 3 years, she has not given up.

My last post in May had an attachment that shows Singapore telling the Taking Parent that she can still apply for Singapore passports for the boys. Back in Sep2009 when we were first searching for the boys, Consular officer Lea Chan didn't know for 5 days that her office issued the passports for the boys a few months earlier in July 2009. Lea Chan is still there, she knows the boys have been kidnapped to Singapore and returned, but yet another Consular officer Janet Phua states in writing that Wang can get new passports.

In Dec 2011, a Child Abduction Prevention Order was issued that prohibits Wang from applying for Singapore passports and other travel-enabling documents; and Wang was supposed to notify the Singapore Consulate or Embassy of the order within 7 days. She has not done it for over 30 months? Why? I went to Court on June 18th for a Contempt charge but the Judge said I was "time barred" for taking action since it has been more than 2 years since the order was issued.

I went to Court yesterday to ask for a new Child Abduction Prevention Order and a few other safety measures. Wang has been ordered to stop talking about Singapore, returning to Singapore and the children's therapy during supervised visitation. She was also ordered to stop sending, passing and mailing notes, letters, cards to the boys during supervised visitation and to our home. The Judge then ordered Wang to provide proof that she served the Dec2011 Order on the Singapore Embassy or Consulate via personal service no later than Sep10 2014. Let's see if she does it this time.

I have been asking the supervised visitation monitors to control the discussion of Singapore and therapy but she still manages to talk about it. She told the boys she did not want them to go to therapy with the current therapist. Last year, I found a letter in the boys' drawer that was passed to them during a supervised visit. We need government regulatory oversight for supervised visitation centers and monitors. Daycare centers are licensed and inspected in California so why can't supervised visitation be required to do the same? My CA State Assemblymember Ed Chau told me there has only been 3 cases of abduction during supervised visitation so a new law is not justified; plus the cost would be difficult for some parents. Daycare centers pay for licensing and pass on the cost to many clients. The same can be done for supervised visitation. Now I go on to the State Senators to get their support for new legislation! Someone will understand and listen at some point.

M.Capestro · « **Reply #2 on:** September 14, 2014, 12:51:52 PM »

Thanks for the update, Andrew. Keep fighting the good fight. -- I'm sorry you're in the position that you have to keep fighting, but your diligence is amazing and I'm so grateful that you continue to fight, not just for yourself but for others. God bless you!

Andrew · « **Reply #3 on:** June 07, 2016, 08:02:51 PM »

It has been 2 years since I last updated the forum on Christopher and William Ko. Here goes:
- Boys are doing well, very well, in school and just finished their sophomore year of high school. They continue to have supervised visitation with their mother but it was recently cancelled by the visitation center.
- Their mother went to Court several times during 2015 to get unsupervised visitation, reduction in the number of monitors and permission to see the boys outside of visitation. All were denied. In June, 2015 she petitioned the Court for the Judge to interview the boys and change the visitation restrictions. The Judge read through her petition and then said: the reason we have the current situation with supervised visitation is not because of what the children want, it is because of your prior actions. The boys' needs were never a deciding factor so motions denied.
- She told the boys that she would go to court and ask the Judge to allow the boys to live with her. She did not do that. All she asked for was relaxed visitation monitoring and to attend functions at the boys' school. Never once did she petition the Court to allow the boys to live with her.
- When the Taking Parent was convicted of kidnapping back in July 2011, she was released due to jail overcrowding and did not serve the 180 sentence. One of the conditions of her probation was that she had to "Obey all orders of the Family Law Court." She started violating Family Court orders starting in Nov 2011. For about 9 months, I wrote the LA County Chief of Probation Blevins, then his successor Jerry Powers, Power's director Ed Johnson, Probation Supervisor Akosah and the Probation Officer Manuel Ruega. Ruega kept rubber stamping the periodic probation reports to the Court with "Complying with all probation conditions." I mailed, emailed and faxed the Sentencing Order to these idiots multiple times but they kept saying they do not enforce civil laws, they only enforce criminal laws.
- In Feb this year, I found a card the mother wrote to the boys. One of the Family Court Orders is that she cannot pass notes, letters, cards or any other writings to the boys. She violated this in Dec 2014 when she started sending them Facebook messages and was asking them to "go private so Dad can't see the messages." I took her back to court but she got off because I didn't send her the Court order by registered mail and she said she never received it.
- I had the local PD investigate the Card and she admitted giving it to the boys. What else she had in there I don't know. A few years back, we found a piece of paper with directions for the boys to follow to go somewhere. That was when we changed visitation monitors.
- The police called the Probation Officer and was told again that they do not enforce civil laws so they were not going to do anything. Incredible! I called my County Supervisor and his officer contacted a director of Probation for our area. Within 2 days Mr. Keith Larsen called me.
- First he apologized for what the Probation Officer said because it was not true. He said he didn't find the "Obey all orders of the Family Law Court" condition in their system but did find it in 2 other systems. So they screwed up for 4 years! He investigated and decided to send the mother back to Court for parole violation. I thought that was great until I attended the hearing on May 13.
- No one from the Probation Dept was in Court. The LA County Child Abduction Unit DA was there. She forewarned me not to expect too much as her probation was ending in July 2016 any way.
- When the hearing started, mother's attorney said he didn't know why the Probation Dept put it on calendar and thought it might be because of "restitution" and the probation ending soon. So he took the opportunity to ask for early termination of probation and reduction of the felony to a misdemeanor.
- The DA objected and refreshed the Judge's memory that this was a serious crime. She told the Judge I want to address the Court but the Judge did not respond.
- There was no discussion of the probation violation. The Judge denied the early termination of probation and set another date of July 13 to do that; and she said she will not reduce the charge to a misdemeanor.
- That was it! No sending her back to jail to serve the remainder of her sentence, no admonishing her for violating probation, NOTHING.
- So here we are. Her next Immigration Deportation hearing is on September 15, 2016. It was continued from March 2015. She was first charged with immigration document fraud in July 2012.
- I would ask anyone reading this to help write the Immigration Judge. Last time a lot of you responded and sent letters to the Judge back in 2014. Please remind the Judge that Yuxin Mei Wang (A 055 170 469) is a convicted kidnapper, she committed immigration document fraud which directly attacks the integrity of our immigration system; and should be deported at her next hearing on September 15, 2016.
- Judge Tara Naselow-Nahas, 606 S. Olive Street, Court Room T, Los Angeles, CA 90014. Please reference "Deportation of Yuxin Mei Wang A 055 170 469).
- We have laws, we just need to enforce them. Thank you all.

Andrew · « **Reply #4 on:** July 27, 2016, 12:18:08 PM »

Hello All. This is the case of Christopher and William Ko ('Ko Brothers') who were abducted to Singapore Sep2009 and returned Mar2011. My last update was on Jun7, 2016 under the subject "Why it takes so long to deport a convicted kidnapping felon - Help!"

I am posting this to ask for your help in writing a letter to the Immmigration Judge as the mother (Taking Parent) is having her 6th deportation hearing on Sep15, 2016. She was charged with immigration fraud in July 2012.

We went back to Family Court on Jul20 2016 where for the 7th time the mother asked the Judge to modify and relax supervised visitation restrictions. The attached shows her requests. The Judge denied her requests to have visitations outside a secure supervised visitation center, to attend school functions (as this is really unsupervised visitation), and to send the children money. I argued that she is already violating an earlier order that prohibits written communication with the children so who knows what the money is for. She is a Singapore citizen and somehow is very keen on the children renouncing their Singapore citizenship. That request for me to help was withdrawn because there is nothing I can do. The only request granted is to visit with one child with one monitor because the visitation center lost one monitor and the Judge did not want to reduce the number of monitors to 1 for 2 boys out of concern of a re-abduction.

During the Family Court hearing, her lawyer let slip that her immigration attorney will now change their argument in Immigration Court at the next hearing. They will now argue that she has minor children and it is a hardship on the children if she is deported. The exact term is "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" on the children. The attorney is going to overlook the facts:

1) Mother has no legal or physical custody of the children.
2) She has not lived with the children nor provided for them since March 2011 (5 1/2 years)
3) She has supervised visitation twice a month for a total of 12 hours in a secure visitation center.
4) Father has been sole provider and supporter of the children for the past 5 1/2 years.

I am asking anyone reading this to please take a few minutes and write to Judge Tara Naselow-Nahas to implore her to deport the Taking Parent and not allow a new argument to prolong the deportation/removal proceedings. The proceedings started in July 2012. Thank you all in advance for your help.

Judgge Tara Naselow-Nahas
606 S. Olive Street
17th Floor, Courtroom T
Los Angeles, CA 90014

Re: Yuxin Mei Wang (A055170469) Removal Hearing on September 15, 2016

Dear Judge Naselow-Nahas:

I am writing to ask your Honor to please order the removal of Defendant Wang and conclude the Removal Proceedings.

Wang is a convicted felon. She kidnapped her twin boys to Singapore in September, 2009. Recently, she was returned to Criminal Court by the Los Angeles County Probation Department on May 13, 2016 for violating terms of her parole.

There is no "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" on her teenage children as she does not have any legal or physical custody. She does not provide any financial or emotional support, or physical care for the children. The children's father has sole legal and physical custody of the children and has been their sole provider and supporter since March, 2011.

The Defendant has supervised visitation inside a secure supervised visitation center 2 times a month for a total of 12 hours. She has returned to Los Angeles Family Court (Dept 81) seven (7) times to modify visitation controls. Judge Robert Broadbelt III denied her requests seven (7) times out of concern of a re-abduction.

I implore your Honor to deny Wang's request for any waiver or cancellation of removal and to issue an order for her removal at the September 15, 2016 hearing.

Sincerely,