SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA IN SESSION AS JUVENILE COURT

____________________________________

In Re Jessica Vithanage Sloan Case No. 153917

____________________________________

PETITION FOR A REHEARING AND MOTION TO DISMISS

____________________________________

The undersigned petitioner hereby petitions for a rehearing from the decision and order of Judge Jeffrey Horner in this case, on the grounds that the courts of California have no jurisdiction over this matter, in that the subject child was kidnapped and abducted from abroad and, as a result, for this court to entertain this proceeding is a violation of international law, as well as the applicable state and federal laws.

Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am the father of the subject child, Jessica Vithanage Sloan.

2. I hereby petition for a rehearing on the ground that the only reason that the subject child is in the State of California is that she was twice abducted in violation of international law. For this reason, the courts are without jurisdiction to proceed in this matter and must return the child to the father from whom she was abducted.

3. First, allow me to state that while there is no question that the mother is guilty of illegal conduct in this matter, I have no interest whatever in having the mother arrested and deported. Indeed, I am trying to avoid exactly that. She was recently granted political asylum. Therefore, her position is somewhat more secure than it was previously. However, I still want to get my daughter, Jessica, back.

4. The fact it that the reason that Jessica Vithanage Sloan reached America is that she was kidnapped. She was only one of three of my children who were kidnapped at the same time. The details of how this happened are rather long and complicated and are available in other documents I have filed in other courts. However, the main point is that there is now an international warrant outstanding for the arrest of two persons in connection with this kidnapping. This can be verified by having any suitable law enforcement authority making a call to the Office of Interpol, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

5. This explains the fact that the mother, Shanti Vithanage, pleaded the Fifth Amendment when she testified at the hearing before Judge Horner in this matter.

6. Because of this, the conduct of this proceeding is a violation of the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C. 11601. That act specifically states that international kidnappings are on the rise and, in order to discourage this practice, countries who receive kidnapped children must return them to the country from which they were kidnapped.

7. I wish to point out that after the subject child was kidnapped on October 7, 1990, there was a change of airplanes at London Heathrow Airport. There, Shanti and the two remaining kidnapped children (the third one, Michael, having been jettisoned along the way) were detained briefly by the British authorities for questioning, because they suspected that a kidnapping might be taking place, especially since the oldest child, Shamema, was traveling without either parent. This means that the child was kidnapped not only in the United Arab Emirates, but also in England. (This fact might be significant with regard to reciprocity related issues.)

8. After the arrival of Jessica in America on October 9, 1990, the mother, Shanti, filed a custody petition on October 24, 1990 in Amherst County, Virginia. I subsequently arrived in Virginia and strenuously objected on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The judge overruled me and, on December 19, 1990, entered an order taking jurisdiction over the matter and ordering that the child not be removed from the State of Virginia.

9. Thereafter, on about January 24, 1991, Shanti fled Virginia with Jessica and brought her to California. This constituted the second kidnapping of Jessica. I thereafter did not know where Jessica was until I received a notice dated November 7, 1991 stating that Jessica had been taken into the custody of the Alameda County Department of Social Services. I then went to California to contest the proceedings.

10. I contend that under these facts, California has no jurisdiction over me. It is therefore required by law that the child must be returned to me. Therefore, this action must be dismissed.

11. This action is also illegal under applicable federal law. In particular, Jessica has been detained pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 601 et seq. In particular, 42 U.S.C. 606(a) states: "The term 'dependant child' means a needy child (1) who has been deprived of parental support or care by reason of the death, continued absence from the home ..... or physical or mental incapacity of a parent. ...".

12. In this case, I am not absent from the home. Rather, the child is absent from my home as a result of having been kidnapped. It must be understood that the federal taxpayer's money is being used to maintain my child in foster care. This is clearly illegal under federal law, because I am perfectly willing and able to take care of my child, provided that she is restored to my home.

13. Finally, it must be emphasized that it is unfair to maintain this proceeding against me. I live in New York. I never brought the child to California. Yet, I am not being told that if I want to get my kidnapped daughter back, I must establish a residence in California and go thorough a long procedure there. This is a clear violation of 42 U.S.C. 601 and of the Uniform Child Custody Act.

14. There have been a number of recent United States Supreme Court decisions pertaining to this area of law. In particular, there is Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Association, 110 S. Ct. 2510 (1990) and Suter v. Artist M., 60 USLW 4251 (March 25, 1992). What these cases establish is that the states must follow the federal law in matters pertaining to the departments of social services, because the federal government is where the states get their money from to run these services. The federal law requires the states "to make reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of children from their homes and to facilitate the reunification of families where removal has occurred." In my case, the child has been kidnapped from my home twice. Jessica was first kidnapped from my home in the United Arab Emirates and secondly was kidnapped from my home in Lynchburg, Virginia. No showing has ever been made that Jessica was not well taken care of as long as she was in my home. It is therefore illegal to require me to come to California to contest this case, when my child should be returned to my home here.

15. In have had numerous discussions with the personnel of the Alameda County Department of Social Services over the past several months. They always tell me that if I want to get my daughter back, I must move to California and establish a residence there. Their other suggestion has been for me to start sending money to Shanti so that the child can be turned over to her. Regarding the second suggestion, the fact is that in the past Shanti has not made good use of the money I sent her. I see sending money to Shanti as not a way to achieve a permanent solution to this problem. The only long term solution to this problem will be to return the child to me.

16. The way the current situation came about, to be very brief, is that in June, 1990, Shanti by complete surprise called me and said that she was in the airport in Dubai, had already received her boarding pass, was about to board a flight to Sri Lanka, and that I should take good care of Jessica, because she would never see her again.

17. At that time, I was living in the United Arab Emirates. One month later, Shanti called me collect from Sri Lanka and said that she had changed her mind and wanted to come back. She wanted me to send her one thousand dollars for her airplane ticket. I was reluctant to do this.

18. Eventually, Shanti raised the money on her own (perhaps as a result of going back to her old job she had when I first met her). She was able to buy her own ticket from Sri Lanka to Dubai. She showed up at my house, but it was deserted, as I had gone with Shamema, Michael, Jessica and my mother to Thailand. Shanti got inside my house in the United Arab Emirates and started making long distance telephone calls all over the world. She finally reached a Mr. Charles Roberts, who was interested in having Shamema kidnapped. Mr. Roberts sent twelve thousand dollars to a professional kidnapper in Thailand named Boonchoo. Boonchoo then allocated two thousand dollars of this money to Shanti. With this money, Shanti was able to fly to Bangkok on September 13, 1990, amidst great fanfare and newspaper publicity in the Bangkok Post arranged by Boonchoo, who is one of the most notorious personalities in Thailand.

19. However, as soon as Shanti arrived in Bangkok, she ran away from Boonchoo and rejoined me. Shanti and I ran with the three children. We finally crossed the border by foot into Malaysia, and got back to the United Arab Emirates.

20. When Boonchoo found out that Shanti and I had escaped from his clutches, he called Shanti on the telephone and threatened to kill her if she did not hand over Shamema. Faced with this threat, Shanti finally agreed. Roberts sent the airplane tickets and Shanti and the two children arrived in America on October 9, 1990, after a brief stopover in England. This explains the Interpol warrant for the arrest of both Shanti and Roberts.

21. Complete documentation of the above can be found in the exhibits filed in the case of Sloan v. Roberts, certiorari denied October, 1991. This includes copies of the airplane tickets by which Shanti and Jessica were brought to America, and copies of newspaper articles and other documentary evidence. I have recently filed another federal case regarding this entitled Sloan v. Pattison, E.D.N.Y., CV 92-2388.

22. The main point is that I have now chased all the way around the world in an effort to recover my kidnapped children. No showing has ever been made that I am not a good father. Therefore, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 11601, the child must be returned to me forthwith without the need for further proceedings.

WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, this proceeding should be dismissed and the child should be returned to the natural father forthwith.

____________________________ Samuel H. Sloan

Sworn to before me this day of June, 1992

______________________ NOTARY PUBLIC Samuel H. Sloan 50 Broad St., Suite 2266 New York, N. Y. 10004

tel: (212) 388-2869

To Clerk's Office California Superior Court 2200 Fairmont Drive San Leandro, Cal. 94578

Att: Joy

Re: Jessica Vithanage Sloan, Case No. 153917

Dear Joy:

Enclosed please find two copies of a petition for a rehearing and motion to dismiss which I wish to file in the above encaptioned case.

I understand that you will arrange for copies to be distributed to the District Attorney and to the Department for Social Services, so that there will be no need for me to serve them with copies.

Very Truly Yours,

Samuel H. Sloan

Contact address - please send e-mail to the following address: Sloan@ishipress.com