Abducted 2009

Julia Gherbetti
	LBP Name:	Bruce Gherbetti
	LBP Location:	Vancouver, BC
	Child's Birthday:	May 2007
	Abduction Date:	September 2009
	Last Contact:	September 2009
	Abductor's Name:	Taiko Suzuki
	Abducted From:	Vancouver, BC

Abducted 2009

Notes from Bruce Gherbetti

• Japan firm on not addressing existing cases of international child abduction

  The leadership of Left Behind Parents Japan met with Yoshinori Oguchi on Monday, January 16th, 2012. Mr. Oguchi is a member of the New Komeito party, the third largest political party represented in the Diet. He was a member of the MoFA committee who discussed modifying Japan’s civil code last fall, in order to sign The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
  We presented our policy statement calling for joint custody, criminalization of parental child abduction, policy enforcement of family court orders, meaningful visitation for non-custodial parents, addition of a new visa category for parents of Japanese children to remain in Japan after losing spousal visa status and modification of domestic violence law in Japan to preclude false allegations with no empirical evidence.
  We asked if the committee had completed their recommendations to the Ministry of Justice at this time. Mr. Oguchi’s response was that joint custody and the Hague Convention were closely related. Regarding joint custody, it is a huge hurdle to overcome. Regarding the Hague Convention, we are now preparing to accede due to the foreign pressure to do so, especially from the USA.
  We asked if, in his opinion, joint custody was not going to move forward in this session of the Diet? His response was that there would be discussion of joint custody in the upcoming full Diet session.

  When asked about current cases of international child abduction his response was that resolving current cases was “quite impossible”.

  We asked if there was any plan whatsoever to resolve existing cases his response was that the government was discussing modifying Japanese domestic law and signing the Hague and that there were groups that were both for and against signing the Hague and that these groups will be listened to during the upcoming session of the Diet. (evasive)
  When we asked about guaranteeing visitation to non-custodial parents Mr. Oguchi responded that he believed that visitation was important for the children. He added that in his opinion, visitation of the non-custodial parent was crucial to reducing child abuse. He stated that he believed that children of divorce should remain in contact with both parents and have the right to be educated by both parents. He stated that visitation of the non-custodial father was a concern due to the possibility of domestic violence. (Gender stereotyping – very concerning)
  When Masako asked about the right to secure information about abducted children from governments, schools etc., Mr. Oguchi’s response was that he believed that this information was attainable currently. (completely inaccurate, it is not available to non-custodial parents.)
  When asked (again) about resolving existing cases for foreign parents who have had their child abducted to Japan, Mr. Oguchi reiterated that existing cases of international abduction were not open for discussion and would not be considered. He said that MoFA and the MoJ had said it was “impossible”.
  Masako pointed out that Japan was continuing to press North Korea to resolve cases of abduction that occurred many years ago and that if Japan does not resolve existing cases of child abduction to Japan it will not reflect favorably upon Japan. She asserted that dealing with existing cases was very important.
  Carlos stated that the GoJ MUST create a way to reunite parents and their abducted children in the existing cases, both international and domestic, to not do so was unacceptable. Mr. Oguchi did not respond to this.

  I stated that currently, court ordered visitations were being denied by abductors. I asked about enforcement of court ordered visitation rights, what enforcement mechanism was the GoJ going to create to ensure that court orders are not violated? Mr. Oguchi’s response was evasive, he spoke of (jishin ho ho ho) which we questioned…Was he referring to the Civil Execution Law for property? He was. ((because children are basically property in Japan))
  Oguchi then said (in complete contrast to his previous answer) that he believed children had a right to see both of their parents. We asserted that only the installation of joint custody would protect those children’s human rights. Current laws are inadequate.
  We asked if Japan signs the Hague Convention, would Japan then use the police to find abducted children? Mr. Oguchi said that police were used in cases of crime. If it is a crime then the police would be used.
  I asked if Japan has plans to criminalize parental child abduction?
  Mr. Oguchi’s response was that if it is judged as a crime by the court then it is possible. (Japan considers abduction a crime when the non-custodial parent, who has no parental rights, takes the child away from the custodial parent.)
  He continued that it is difficult to consider this a crime because it is the biological parent ( and custodial parent) who abducted the child. Japan does not consider this a crime.

  Carlos asked again if Japan needed to create a law which criminalizes parental abduction by either parent?
  Mr. Oguchi responded in an evasive fashion, he talked about the fact that there were current discussions about how Japan can modify domestic laws in order to accede to the Hague convention and still protect women from domestic violence. (We have known this for six months. We know that Japan is trying to find loopholes to the Hague as it is currently written. Japan continues to portray foreign fathers as abusers)
  We further discussed violations of agreed upon parenting plans…When visitation is modified, revoked or changed by the custodial parent currently there is no recourse for the non-custodial parent. Mr. Oguchi’s response to this was again that the Civil Execution Law currently in place for property transfers can be used for forced custody transfers. We asserted that this was only effective when the custodial parent voluntarily agrees to give over custody, it is not actually enforcement. Mr. Oguchi stated, regarding enforcement, “it looks difficult”.

  Final question by me was to request a comment from Mr. Oguchi regarding the fact that Japan is currently in violation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, sections 9.3 and 10.2 specifically. His response, translated, “There are many lacking points in Japanese system. Japan already ratified that Convention. I would like to recognize what you have suggested to us today. It is the base of Japanese law, so there are many opinions. We received over 800. The Japanese system regarding protecting children’s rights is inadequate. This is from the base of Japanese tradition and law. Japan, as a democratic country…of course, there will be many detailed discussions regarding domestic law ahead.”

  Editor’s notes:
  This Congressman was the most evasive to date. I left this meeting having discovered only one thing for sure. JAPAN IS NOT PLANNING TO ADDRESS OR RESOLVE EXISTING CASES OF ABDUCTION.

   

  Original post: http://4rionandlaurenandjulia.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/japan-firm-on-not-addressing-existing-cases-of-parental-child-abduction/

• LBPJ & APFS Joint Policy Statement

  This policy statement has been submitted to the Japanese government’s Ministry of Justice and also to Justice Minister (2011) Satsuki Eda.

  1. Joint Custody

  We strongly urge the Government to adopt new laws that abolish the Sole Custody System and facilitate Joint Custody. We believe this is urgently needed to protect the rights of both Children and Parents. The current Sole Custody System is harmful to a child and parent; furthermore it interferes with the human rights of Japanese citizens, foreign citizens, and children of all races in the country. The Sole Custody System creates anxiety amongst Japanese parents with bi-cultural children living in Japan and abroad because the Sole Custody System give reason for parental kidnapping by both parents when they fear they will lose all access to their child if the child remains or makes it to Japanese shores. The mixed feelings amongst both parents lead to suicidal tendencies, loss of work, low self-esteem, and unhealthy future relationships with the opposite sex. It also contributes to Parental Alienation Syndrome which is recognized around the world as harmful to children. For these reasons we strongly urge the government to adopt a Joint Custody System. A Joint Custody System will protect the rights of both children and parents.

  2. Enforcement

  The human rights of the parent and child to maintain contact with each other in the event of divorce, separation, or decease of one parent is a Fundamental Human Right that is recognized by governments around the world and practiced in nearly every culture on earth, except Japan. This Fundamental Freedom has to be protected with the full force of the law. The government should use all means at its disposal to ensure these basic rights are protected, including police enforcement and jail time for violations of the law. We urge the Government to adopt measures proposed by former Judge Masanori Watanabe. Mr. Watanabe’s proposal should be the guide the government uses when drafting an enforcement mechanism to protect the rights of parents and children. We strongly believe that without a strong enforcement mechanism the rights of the non-custodial parent will continue to be violated in the future. Furthermore, we do not recommend monetary fines and idle threats of losing custody as a future deterrent measure; these actions alone will not work. We urge the government to create new laws with a strong enforcement mechanism and obligate law enforcement officials to cooperate in restoring the rights of any parent who has lost contact with their child.

  3. Visitation Rights

  First, we strongly urge the government to facilitate the immediate reunification of all our members with their children. Second, we strongly urge the government to bring to an immediate end to limited visitation rulings that grant a small number of parents one day per month or one day every six weeks. We urge the government to immediately draft measures that guarantee both parents equal parenting time. We would like to see the government create measures that require both parents to create a Parenting Plan if couples choose to divorce or a child born to unwed couples chooses to raise a child in separate households. Furthermore, we strongly believe that a parenting plan should be a requirement for divorce and a requirement for the upkeep of a child born out of wedlock or separated from one or both Parents.
  We urge the Government to immediately prevent legal professionals, medical professionals, government employees, elected officials, school administrators, and anyone abusing their authority to deny a parent access to their child or information about their child to stop these unwarranted actions. We strongly urge the government to bring these actions to an immediate end.

  4. Immigration Procedures

  We strongly urge the government to guarantee status for residence in Japan for foreign parents with a child living in Japan who sincerely long to see and actively parent their own child. We want the government to understand that foreign parents who have children with Japanese nationals and who happen to divorce their Japanese spouse will lose their spousal visa status and may be compelled to return to their country of origin if they cannot change their visa status. In addition, many foreign parents come to Japan seeking their child but cannot obtain enough information with a temporary visa. We strongly urge the government to guarantee the visa status of foreign parents with a child living in Japan by adopting a new visa category for foreign parents.

  5. Domestic Violence

  We deplore domestic violence in any shape or form and we applaud the government’s efforts to protect all men, women and children from physical and mental abuse. We believe that all men, women and children deserve the protection of the state when there is a legitimate threat of physical harm to their well-being. We understand, in these cases the first priority is to protect these men, women and children from physical harm and to secure their safety. We applaud the government’s actions toward a gender equal society, but we have some legitimate concerns about how the law for spousal abuse and domestic violence is currently administered by the State.
  First, we strongly recommend the government to create clear guidelines that state how a parent who loses custody of his/her child because of domestic violence can recover his/her parental authority. We recommend the government create counseling centers where parents who have lost any form of their parental authority or have been found guilty in a court of domestic violence can receive counseling and education on parenting and marital relations based on the customs and traditions of Japan. In cases where foreign nationals are involved we urge the government to give more serious consideration to the traditions and customs of the foreign parent, and any form of counseling for foreign parents should, as much as possible, be carried out in the native language of the foreign parent.
  Second, we strongly urge the government to review the standards for accepting evidence in the courts. Domestic violence should be proven by clear and objective proofs as recommended by former judge Masanori Watanabe. We strongly request the government to review the law for spousal abuse and domestic violence. We urge the government to use the recommendations of Mr. Watanabe as the standard of proof. Furthermore, we urge the government to take actions to prevent government officials, law enforcement officials, legal professionals, and medical professionals from abusing their authority to sway the court’s opinion in determining the custody of a child. We recommend suspension of professional licenses for any professional found guilty of abusing their authority to determine the custody of a child.
  Third, the government should seriously consider No Fault Divorces. We would like the government to understand that forcing couples to stay married when there is no real affection between two spouses contributes to anger and hatred between couples, leads to domestic violence, and subjects women and children to bondage to the family’s breadwinner.
  Fourth, women and children near the poverty line who need assistance from the State should not have to use domestic violence to qualify to receive benefits from the State, at any level of government. The central government and local governments should abolish any practices that qualify women and children for social services based solely on domestic violence.
  Concluded by:

  Left Behind Parents Japan
  Organizer, Masako Akeo Suzuki
  Representative Director, Carlos Smith
  Representative Director, Bruce R. Gherbetti

  Asian Peoples Friendship Society
  Representative, Jotaro Kato

• December 2nd - Third trip to Iwaki

  Went to Iwaki again Friday, December 2nd.

  Upon arriving at the Suzuki family home I discovered it to be very quiet. I heard a television on in a side room and upon knocking and investigation it turned out that my father-in-law was there sleeping. It seems that my middle daughter Lauren had returned from school and was upstairs either playing very quietly or (more likely) having a nap. Suzuki Akiyoshi (her grandfather) upon waking him had no idea that she was even there. What is wrong with these people that a six year old is left to fend for herself in the company of an ill old man who is unaware of her presence. Children walk the streets alone here in Japan. They are raised by schools and ostensibly must raise themselves much of the time. My father-in-law had no idea where his wife was, no clue where my eldest daughter Rion was, no information at all. Unbelievable and sad.

  When we returned to the house approximately two hours later there was some light emanating from the middle room of the house (living/dining room). I was going to leave a note for my ex-wife and a note for my children but upon looking inside I saw some little legs dangling from a chair.

  It was my beautiful daughter Lauren. She will be seven years old on January 2nd, 2012. I spoke to her and asked her if she wanted to come and give her daddy a hug this time? She turned her head and stopped looking at me. I removed my shoes and entered, approaching and standing next to her as she was seated, eating some warm, sweet breads. I told her that I loved her. I asked her if her mother had told her not to look at me or talk to me? I gently touched her shoulder as I told her that it was okay for her to look at and talk to daddy, that daddy loves her and she has no reason to fear anything. I stroked her hair gently. I said that I was going to give her a little kiss on the head. (She understands English still!!!). She was uncomfortable. The 2+ years of alienation and, I’m quite certain, disparaging of her father by her mother and family has taken it’s toll. She is under the spell of parental alienation. Poor little darling. Torn apart by feelings of wanting to interact with daddy, no doubt, and her instructions not to do so in any way, shape or form.

  I am so disappointed in my ex-wife for what she has done to this lovely child.

  Nonetheless, it is the first time I have touched Lauren in 27 months. For people who have not had their children abducted and alienated against them I know it sounds ridiculous but just to touch her shoulder and stroke her head was a joy that I cannot describe. Even now as I write about it my eyes have welled with tears of joy tinged by sadness. Lauren then left the room and I respected her boundaries and said I love you Lauren and let her go. It was then that we left. The entire interaction was no more than 90 seconds.

  I am resolute. I will continue to work to rebuild the relationship between Lauren and I. I will continue to visit my children. I will NEVER GIVE UP. I will NEVER GIVE IN.

  A special thanks to Alex and Matt for accompanying me to Fukushima. They are great men and great fathers also.

• Judge for Yourself

  The government of Japan is gearing up to create domestic legislation in preparation for joining the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. They have said it will be addressed in the next full session of the Diet in the new year. Currently, as many of you are aware, reports indicate that the government of Japan is intending to create loopholes in this legislation which ensure that very few if any children will be required to be returned under the Convention. In order to prevent this, there has been proposed legislation created by left behind parent groups here in Japan which is presently being used to lobby Diet members on the behalf of LBP’s.

  There are two plans which are being used currently. One plan, very political in nature, is not strongly worded and in this writer’s opinion, does not have a very strong enforcement component in it. The second plan, written by a former Judge in the Japanese legal system, is very strongly worded and calls for a law similar to California’s current family law system post separation and divorce. The enforcement component seems stronger. Please read the two plans below and as the title of this article indicates, judge for yourself.
  _________________________________________________________________________________

  PLAN 1 – writer unknown

  A Letter to Request the Creation of Laws to Prohibit the Kidnapping of Children and the Legal Requirement to Create a Cooperative Plan to Raise Children in the Event of Divorce or Separation

  February 4, 2011
  National Association for the Establishment of Laws to
  Prevent Separation of Parents and Children

  The problem of child kidnapping and separation is a problem that causes physical and mental instability to the point of threatening the life of the child and separated parent as well as the parent who separates the child, and intimately affects the growth of the children who will be responsible for the society of the future, so we believe the state should consider it as a problem that needs to be solved at the highest priority.

  We request to all Diet members to fully understand the current situation, and cross party and factional borders to submit and pass the “Law to Stop the Interruption of Parent-Child Interaction (tentative name)” within this regular Diet session.

  1. Principle
  -It is stipulated that relations between spouses and those of parents and children are separate, and even during times of living separately or after divorce, maintaining frequent and continued interaction between parents and children is seen as “the most beneficial for the child”, and the interruption of parent-child relations is contrary to the “welfare of the child”.

  2. Carrying Out Cooperative Child Raising
  -That during period of separation or after divorce, in order to ensure that the parent living separately is able to participate in the raising and education of the child in conjunction with the parent living with the child, the necessary steps will be taken to ensure that the separated is able to have the necessary access to the child (2 nights, 3 days every other week, longer stays during long vacations, etc, to allow for over 100 days, such as is the standard in the West.)
  -That the parties included in this interaction shall include grandparents.

  3. The Decision of a Mutual Plan for Child Raising
  -That separation and divorce cause a much shock and uneasiness to children, and that in order to support children both materially and mentally and reduce the impact as much as possible, the creation of a “Mutual Plan for Child Raising” to define support payments and interaction times shall be made mandatory.
  -In the Mutual Plan for Child Raising, in addition to defining support payments and interaction times, it will also be made clear that the separated parent must be consulted and agree to important issues related to the child (schooling, employment, etc) .

  4. The Prohibition of Kidnapping
  -“Leaving with a Child” the taking of a child without both parents’ consent shall be prohibited.
  -In the case that one parent takes a child without permission, the child will be returned to the original residence while taking into account any domestic violence or abuse, and arrangements will be made for the two parents to discuss the raising of the child as soon as possible.

  5. Principle for the Decision of Primary Guardian
  -As the provision of as much contact with both parents as possible is desirable, the primary guardian and custodianship will be given not necessarily to the parent currently in custody, but in principle will be decided with the following guidelines:
  1. The parent who kidnapped or separated with the child shall lose custody. (loss of custody).
  2. Priority to the more accommodating parent (The parent who agrees to the most frequent visitations with the other).
  3. Equality between the sexes.
  4. The parent (loss of custody) who has applied for restraining orders to keep the opposing parent away from their children based on false accusation of domestic violence (DV) shall lose custody of the child.

  6. The Provision of Parenting Programs
  -That programs of study will be created to educate that it is beneficial to create an environment following divorce in which a child can have contact with both parents.
  -That it will be prohibited to refuse the attendance of the separated parent at the child’s school events, and that the parent will be able to receive recordings of such events.

  7. The Restoration of Participation of the Non-Custodial Parent in Mutual Child Raising
  -That it be made possible to restore participation in mutual child raising to the parent who has lost custodial rights (does not have them), in line with the Mutual Plan for Child Raising. Based on this, taking into consideration past events, such as attempts by the custodial parent to leave with the child, it shall be possible to make changes to guardianship and custodial right.
  -That counseling and other steps be provided to parents and children who separated for a long duration.

  8. Collateral for Effectiveness
  -By setting fines and the provision for changes in guardianship and custody, there will be collateral provided to ensure that the above process will be properly followed.

  9. Directions to the Government in Relation to Mutual Custody Programs, etc.
  -That the government will be directed to create a program for both parents to retain custody (Mutual Custody Program) for a set period of time, based on the fact that it is a problem that under the current programs, one parent is deprived of custody regardless of whether there has been any reason to forfeit custody.

  PLAN 2 – Written by former Judge Masanori Watanabe

  

  Parental Authority Law (private scheme)

   

  Because of Japan’s old institution of giving a single parent sole authority of his (her) children after divorce, and given the growing rate of divorces, an enormous amount of suffering is being inflicted on the other parent when he (she) is forced to be completely separated from his (her) own children, notwithstanding depriving a great number of children of their good growing environment to become respectable adults. Therefore we have decided to bring forward this law to prevent these sad cases from happening following divorce or separation of parents of children, and to ensure a healthy environment for children to grow up, in which they can keep enough contact with their parents, together with removing as much difficulty and sadness caused by divorce as possible from children.

   

  Article 1 (Those who hold parental authority in case of divorce or recognition)

  ① The parental authority of his (her) child should be carried out by both of their parents after their divorce under agreement.

  ② In the preceding item, parents should nominate one of them as custodial parent (called「custody parent」 in the following sentences). The other parent (called 「non-custody parent」 in the following sentences) carries out his (her) parental authority in ways other than the custody parent in cooperation with the custody parent.
  ③ Their child(ren) follows the direction and provided by the custody parent. The custody parent should allow the non-custody parent enough time to meet his (her) own child in a year, not accepting, if he(she) wants, any observation by the custody parent. The amount of time to meet his (her) own child should be more than 150 days including lodging with his (her) child more than 70 days per year, and more than 6 hours per day excluding the night time of 11PM to 7AM.

  ④ If one parent takes away his (her) child without permission of the other parent, he (she) should be deprived of whole parental authority and any parental qualification permanently thereafter.

  ⑤ As for the taking away of a child in the preceding item, the taking parent cannot bring forward such an excuse as domestic violence (called DV in the following sentences). If he (she) takes away his (her) child on account of false claim of DV, he (she) should lose any parental authority and any parental qualification permanently thereafter. Only if he (she) gets judicial order of protection from violent partner from a court in the process of divorce, he (she) should be considered as one who took away his (her) child on account of DV. Therefore if DV is proved by clear and objective proofs, this rule will not be applied.

  ⑥ When parents make divorce before the birth of a child, the parental authority should be carried out by both parents. In this case they can nominate one parent as a single parental authority holder under their agreement after the birth of the child.

  ⑦ When a father admits the child as his own child after the child’s birth, the parental authority of the child should be carried out by both parents. In this case, the latter sentence of the preceding item should be applied.

  ⑧ If the agreement of the second item as for the nomination of the custody parent or the third item as for the schedule of meeting his (her) child cannot be accomplished, each parent can request family court to rule on a decision. The family court should decide on custody according to the grade of sincerity for the custody and the mind of the child as far as possible. And the court is forbidden to take DV reason for the account of the decision, unless there are clear and objective proofs.

  ⑨ If the environment of the child needs change of the custody parent, a family court can change the custody parent to the other one for the benefit of the child, by the offer of the relatives of the child. In this case the family court should decide according to the grade of sincerity for the custody and the mind of the child as far as possible. And the court is forbidden to take DV reason for the account of the decision, unless there are clear and objective proofs.
  If the custody parent prevents the non-custody parent from meeting his (her) child as stated in the third item without any acceptable reason several times, the measure which should be taken is the same as that of the preceding sentence. In this case the change of the custody parent should be allowed as a rule as long as there is no justifying reason. In this case custody parent or court is forbidden to take DV reason for the account of the decision.

   

  Article 2 (The order of the court to bring back his (her) child over to custody parent)

  ① The parent who takes his(her) child without agreement should bring the child back over to custody parent as soon as possible.

  ② If the parent who should do the duty does not carry out the duty within a due period within two months, he (she) should be treated as a perpetrator of the abduction of his (her) child.

  ③ A parent whose child has been taken away by the other parent without agreement can request the family court which falls under the judicial territory according to the living place of the child or of the custody parent to announce the order of bringing the child back over to the custody parent. The measure of carrying out this order includes direct compulsion which is allowed when any means have been done and the procedure will be conducted by an execution officer, as well as indirect one. The execution officer can ask police to support the action of the family court. And the court is forbidden to take DV reason for the account of the decision to announce this order.

   

  Article 3 (Prohibition on concealing information of children from a parental authority holder)

  ① Any concealment of information about children from a parental authority holder is prohibited.

  ② Anyone who has moved children without permission of a parental authority holder, or who has concealed information about children from a parental authority holder, should be liable to imprisonment at hard labor for less than ten years.

  ③ The police are obliged to give information to a parental authority holder about the whereabouts of his (her) children after confirming their whereabouts when the parental authority holder requests.

   

  Article 4 (Bringing back prior abducted child(ren))

  ① One who already abducted his (her) child without any permission of the other parent
  before this law has come into effect should lose all qualification of parental authority and of custody parent status permanently thereafter.

  ② Any adoptions taken before this law has come into effect should be announced invalid. However, both parents can newly agree to have their child adopted as before. However, in this case, they should consider the mind of the child primarily for the solution of the problem.

  ③ The fifth item of article 1, the article 2, and the article 3 are similarly applied in this article ４.

   

  Article 5 (Similar application) This law should be similarly applied to cases of divorce from annulment of marriage and sentence divorce by court decision.

   

  Article 6 (Amendments of the civil law and so on)

  ① Article 819 of the civil law should be made invalid.

  ② In articles 820 and 821 of the civil law, stated “one who carries out parental authority” should be taken as “custody parent”.

   

  Article 7 (Application dating back to the past) This law should be applied dating back up to the day preceding January first, 1989. Furthermore, the enforcement date of this law referred to in article 4 means the real date, and this article 7 and the article 4 should be applied both in harmony.

  February 8th, 2011
  former judge Masanori Watanabe

   

  by Bruce R. Gherbetti

  father of Rion, Lauren and Julia (abducted to Japan Sept. 2009)

• Love e-mail from Rion

  from http://4rionandlaurenandjulia.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/love-e-mail-from-rion/

  This was sent to me by my daughter Rion (via her mother) when Rion was 5 years old. Every summer from 2005-2009, Taiko and the girls would go to Japan for 5 weeks to visit their Japanese family while I remained home working. These summer visits were hard for me because I missed my daughters so much when they were gone, but I felt it was important that they know their Japanese heritage and visit with their Japanese family. I would speak to them every day while they were away. Sometimes I would receive e-mails like this one:

  Sent Sunday June 1st, 2008 at 10:00:49
  “Thank you for your hug and kiss,Daddy.
  I miss you and love you too.
  We are having a great time here with our Japanese family.
  They are so nice to us and play with us.
  Dad, Rion loves you dada,you know ?
  love, Rion.”

  It is truly a pity that their mother does not share in the thought that it is very important for our children to know ALL of their family, Japanese and Canadian. I always thought that they should. I still do.

  I love you Rion, Lauren and Julia. I will see you again very soon.

  Bruce R. Gherbetti
  father of Rion, Lauren and Julia (abducted to Japan, Sept. 2009)