MEMORANDUM OF LAW RE TOLLING OF ART 12 PERIOD

                 The Convention on the Civil Aspects
                                  of
                    International Child Abduction,
                   done at the Hague on 25 Oct 1980

                              ----------

              International Child Abduction Remedies Act
                        42 U.S.C. 11601 et seq

     1.0    FACTS
     1.1    The STATEMENT OF [Name of Declarant] RE: WHEREABOUTS
            OF THE MINOR CHILD, dated [Enter date] is
            incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
            herein.
     1.1.1      This document shows that the minor child was
                abducted from the [Country] on [Enter date(s)]
                and that the child's whereabouts were unknown
                until approximately [Enter date] when the minor
                child was located in [Enter place child was
                found].
     1.2    [If appropriate] The DECLARATION OF [Name and Title
            of Declarant, e.g., Investigator, etc.] is
            incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
            herein.
     1.2.1      This document shows the diligent and continuous
                efforts taken by the [Enter name of county or
                other geographical entity] District Attorney's
                Child Abduction Unit [Or other agency] to locate
                the minor child.
     2.0    WHEN A CHILD IS ABDUCTED FROM HIS OR HER HABITUAL
            RESIDENCE AND THE ABDUCTOR CONCEALS THE CHILD, THE
            TIME FOR COMMENCING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A JUDICIAL
            AUTHORITY IS TOLLED PENDING THE LOCATION OF THE
            CHILD.
     2.1    The evidence shows that [Name of abducting parent]
            abducted the minor child from the [Country] on [Enter
            date(s)] and that the abductor took steps to conceal
            the child's whereabouts:  [Enter evidentiary data to
            prove this point, e.g., Post Card from foreign
            country, copies of passport pages, etc.].
     2.2    Where, as here, the victim parent promptly makes a
            request for return to the appropriate Central
            Authority and where there was diligent efforts to
            locate the child, then the period of time in which an
            action is to be filed in a court is tolled.  Hemard v
            Hemard (N.D.Texas 1995) Civil Action File Number
            7-94-CV-110X, copy attached.
     2.2.1      Accord:  De Arrendondo vs Salto (Cal.Super. 1997)
                Santa Clara County  NO. FL065075, copy attached.
     2.3    Similar conclusions have been reached under the
            Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), 9
            Uniform Laws Annotated (ULA)  1 thru 28.
     2.3.1      The UCCJA uses the term "Home State" [9 ULA (5)]
                (which is similar in nature to the one year
                period of integration in Art. 12 of The
                Convention on the Civil Aspects of International
                Child Abduction, done at the Hague on 25 Oct 1980
                [The Convention].
     2.3.2      In discussing the "Home State" period, the
                Official Comments to the UCCJA state the
                following:

                "Home state" is defined in section 2(5). A
                6-month period has been selected in order to have
                a definite and certain test which is at the same
                time based on a reasonable assumption of fact.
                See Ratner, Child Custody in a Federal System, 62
                Mich.L.Rev. 795, 818 (1964) who explains:

                "Most American children are integrated into an
                American community after living there six months;
                consequently this period of residence would seem
                to provide a reasonable criterion for identifying
                the established home."

     2.3.3      Since both Art. 12 of The Convention and the
                "Home State" language of the UCCJA speak of the
                time it takes for a child to become integrated
                into a community, they are analogous.
     2.3.4      Courts in the United States have held that
                concealing a child does not permit the abductor
                to claim that the time the child is concealed as
                part of the "Home State" status in the requested
                state.  Freeman v. Freeman (Ky. 1977) 547 S.W.2d
                437, 441.  In one case a court has held that
                concealing a child for three and a half years did
                not cause the original state to lose its "Home
                State" status. Sams v Boston (W.Va. 1989) 384
                S.E.2d 151, 162.  As the court in Curtis v Curtis
                (Miss. 1990) 574 So.2d 24, 29-30 so succinctly
                put it, concealing a child does not " . . .
                generate so much as a single tick of the UCCJA's
                six consecutive months clock."
     3.0    CONCLUSIONS
     3.1    Since the minor child was abducted from the [Country]
            and was concealed by the abducting parent [or other
            party] and since diligent efforts were made to locate
            the child and since the child was located [Enter time
            period, e.g., within the last two or three weeks],
            then the one year period of Art. 12 was tolled during
            the period of concealment.
     3.2    Accordingly the action was brought in the court
            system within the one year period of Art. 12 and the
            minor child must be returned to her habitual
            residence of the [Country].
     4.0    SUBMISSION
     4.1    Respectfully submitted on [date]

            _____________________________
            [Name of Party or Attorney]