Japan: Supreme Court hands down a road map for parental child abductions



In 2014, after years of diplomatic pressure and countless horror stories about parents losing all contact with children taken to or retained in Japan, the nation finally joined the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. This should have relegated to history Japan’s growing reputation as a “black hole” of abduction of children by one parent — usually the Japanese one —after the breakdown of a marriage or other relationship.

Less than four years later, in a sadly predictable ruling issued on Dec. 21, Japan’s Supreme Court confirmed abductions can continue. The difference seems to be that lower courts will pay lip service to the ideals of the convention by going through the motions, and various well-intentioned institutions now exist to help achieve the amicable resolutions that should ideally end such cases. But visitation with taken children will still be difficult or impossible, return orders will remain unenforceable and, at the end of it all, courts will be able to find it best for the children to stay in Japan.

The baroque procedural regime adopted by Japan to implement the convention was designed to give lower courts various ways to avoid returning children. Now that the top court has ratified such a result, we can probably expect to see more cases like this.

Children will be the principal victims of such abductions. However, I can’t help but feel sympathy for Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It bore the brunt of foreign criticism before Japan joined the treaty and, acting as Central Authority under it since , has devoted significant resources to resolving cases and helping the parents and children involved in such cases. This judgment will probably now make its job that much harder.

Escape hatches do their job

The case on which the court ruled has already been widely reported in the Western press. It involved the four children of an American father and Japanese mother.

According to the Supreme Court’s judgment they were brought to Japan by the mother in July 2014 with a promise they would be returned to their home in the United States the following month. They stayed. The following year the father applied to a Japanese court for a return order under the Hague Convention.

In 2016, the Osaka High Court issued an order that the children should be returned. The court found that the older children (11 at the time they were brought to Japan) were found to not want to return, but returning just the younger ones (who were both 6) would have been bad for all of them.

The basic concept underlying the convention is that children in these situations should be returned — promptly — by courts where they have been taken to their jurisdiction of habitual residence, and decisions about their long-term best interests should be made by courts there. The convention provides a few exceptions where returns can be refused, specifically: (i) if the child “objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views” and (ii) “there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.”

Having obtained a return order, the father then set about trying to enforce it. Here he encountered the unpleasant reality that Japanese family court orders involving children are generally unenforceable. No adults get arrested or even punished for noncooperation, meaning abducting parents (and the family members who often help them) can flaunt the law and the rulings of Japanese courts. This is relatively common knowledge within Japan, where even domestic divorces can see a child unilaterally taken by one parent and the other losing all contact for years. That a case like this would arise under the Hague Convention was always predictable; it was just a matter of when it would happen.

Whilst refusing to cooperate with the return order, the mother filed a motion to have the whole matter reconsidered based on changed circumstances. This was one of the escape hatches built into Japan’s implementing act — the ability of a losing party to seek a new trial (after an appeal!), even though the whole point of the process is to get kids back home as quickly as possible.

The Osaka High Court did rule expeditiously on this motion (impressive when one considers it can take years or even decades for a wrongly convicted criminal defendant to get a retrial based on new evidence) and — lo and behold — found it was no longer appropriate to return the child because the father lacked the wherewithal to support them. (That the father had been forced to pursue ruinously expensive cross-border litigation to remedy the abduction did not seem to matter.)

This was the other bolt-hole built into Japan’s implementing act: the ability of judges to consider the child-rearing capabilities of both parents in determining whether the exception in (ii) above might apply. In other words, the court did a custody evaluation about what would be in the best interests of the children, which is one of the basic things that is not supposed to happen in Hague Convention cases. The basic premise, again, is that custody determinations should be made by courts where the children have been habitually resident.

That this escape hatch would be used in a difficult case such as this was also predictable. Otherwise Japan’s courts would have suffered the ongoing bother and embarrassment of a demonstrably unenforceable return order hanging out in limbo in a high-profile case.

Top court decides on custody

It is this ruling that the five judges on the Supreme Court’s 1st Petty Bench upheld. Judgments of Japan’s Supreme Court are often terse, particularly when dealing with subjects like excessive detention, police misbehavior, constitutional violations and so forth. Part of the rationale may be that, except in rare cases, the top court only considers appeals as to matters of law and does not revisit lower court findings of fact, and the judgment just needs to contain conclusions about the applicable law.

When it comes to family cases, however, the court sometimes breaks from this staid mold and its judges presume to explain what is best for children they have never even met. In their December ruling the court declared in no uncertain terms that “the appellant (father) lacks the financial basis to appropriately care for the children, and cannot be expected to receive ongoing support in their care and support from his family.” It would thus be bad for the children to be returned to America.

That in the course of ruminating on the best interests of the children the judges did not find it worth mentioning that they had been denied all contact with their father during the entire process is simply indicative of how little importance the Supreme Court attaches to the parent-child relationship, at least when it is inconvenient to the result that best suits the court system.

At risk of sounding repetitive, who is best suited to care for the children is precisely the type of decision that the Hague Convention expects to be made in the home country. Moreover, Article 20 of the treaty clearly states that “a decision under this Convention concerning the return of the child shall not be taken to be a determination on the merits of any custody issue.” Perhaps the court just found this language inconvenient when for all intents and purposes it conclusively determined the merits of the custody issues in this particular case — where the children would grow up and who would raise them.

There you have it. Courts in other countries should now be on notice that, despite Japan joining the Convention and a diligent Central Authority providing assistance to parents of taken children, return orders issued by the nation’s courts remain unenforceable, contact can be safely denied, Japanese judges looking for ways to let children stay in Japan can simply find fault with the left-behind parent’s imagined parenting capabilities and higher courts will ratify that decision as being “in the best interests of the children.”

By demonstrating such a low threshold for refusing returns and condoning noncooperation with enforcement proceedings, the Supreme Court’s ruling seems likely to serve as a road map for further abductions to come.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding parental abduction to or from Japan feel free to contact us 24 / 7.  We are always available at contact@abpworld.com or by calling our offices – +1 (805) CHILD-11 (+18052445311)


Pakistan: The Hague Convention’s implementation


In November 2016, after the approval of cabinet, Pakistan had decided accede to the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of Child Abduction. On 22 December 2016, Pakistan deposited its instruments of Accession to Hague Convention and became the 96th contracting State to the Convention. The Convention came into force for Pakistan on 1st March 2017.The Convention provides a structure to support contracting states, by providing a various civil, non-criminal, legal formalities and procedures for the protection and safe return of abducted children when taken abroad by a parent or a custodian from Hague signatory countries.

Pakistan is the 4th Muslim country and 1st South Asian country to sign the Hague Convention of Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Signing the Convention had become an absolute need for Pakistan with approximately 7 million Pakistanis living and working overseas.

Even before joining the Hague Club, Pakistan had already been involved and played an active role in all international forums working for the international protection of children and resolution of complex, trans-frontiers family conflicts concerning custody of, or contact with, abducted children, where the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention did not apply.

Pakistan in 2013, served as co-chair to the working party on mediation within the ”Malta Process”. The Malta Process promotes co-operation with countries on jurisdiction, applicable laws, recognition, enforcement in respect of parental responsibility, measures for the protection of children, and non-contracting states whose legal systems are based on or by Islamic law (Shariah).

Having this association with international community as a working partner, Pakistan had recognised that the 1980 Child Abduction Convention, the 1996 Child Protection Convention and the 2007 Child Support Convention offered a number of important principles expressed in the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, all in the best interests of children.

Pakistan had ratified Hague Convention on 22nd December 2016, with these understandings and a sense of responsibility that these Hague Children’s Conventions are designed to for a global reach to be compatible with diverse legal traditions. Pakistan is now a contracting state to two Hague Conventions, the other instrument being the Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Services Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters.

While ratifying Hague, Pakistan has ensured that it will apply to the whole territory of Pakistan and confirmed in its acceding statement that the Hague Convention is a state specific multi-lateral commitment. Thus, it remains an obligation of the Federal Government to ensure its implementation through appropriate means and vested powers to the central Authority under the statute by virtue of a notification dated 25th September 2017. However in its accession, Pakistan has also made certain reservations in relation to Articles 8, 10, 15 and 16.

Pakistan’s current legal system tackles child abduction with provisions from the Pakistan Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Guardian and Wards Act. Article 2 of The Hague Convention required contracting states to make all necessary efforts to implement the Convention in their domestic legal system. Thus the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 (W.P.XXXV of 1964) sub section 3 of section 5 has been amended vide SRO No 980 (1) 2017 to include in its schedule Part 1 No – 6A” Matter pertaining to return of the child under the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction,1980″. This amendment has automatically extended the jurisdiction of all family courts in Pakistan dealing cases under section 25 of Guardian and Ward Act 1890 to entertain matters pertaining to international child abduction disputes concerning custody, foreign court’s orders and judgments from contracting states of Hague Convention.

The Solicitor General’s Office in the Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights has been designated as the Central Authority as per Article 6 of the Convention. Therefore, Pakistan is now ready to receive and entertain applications from other contracting states with the equipped Secretariat. Pakistan as a Federation and sovereign state shall comply with foreign court orders and directions of all contracting states of the Hague Convention. The Ministry of Law and Justice has further included the Convention in its website with full particulars of the Solicitor General’s office. All other related authorities have also included particulars of Pakistan’s Central Authority and notified its ratification in their respective databases and websites.

Pakistan is not a union of any state; it is a federal sovereign state which is well equipped to deal with international child abduction according to The Hague Convention standards. In Federal Judicial Academy and in other provincial judicial academies training sessions for family court Judges have been arranged in dealing with international child abduction cases. All relevant stakeholders have received training and whenever or wherever an instance of child abduction takes place; it shall be dealt with according to the Convention’s standards and requirements, whether it is concerning access to the child or return of the child to a contracting state. The judiciary, administrative authorities and enforcement agencies, because of dealing with child abduction cases under a bilateral arrangement on child matters through a protocol between UK and Pakistan since 2002, already feels to have acquired a 12 year experience and training in child abduction cases. It is therefore perceived that all connected authorities of the state will promptly respond to the directions of the central authority in future.

Under the notification, the Central Authority shall exercise administrative as well as quasi-judicial powers, with immediate effect, to issue directions to all enforcement agencies (Police, CIA, FIA, District administration, Immigration and Aviation authorities etc), and assist Family Court’s throughout Pakistan if an application is received from a contracting states relating to child recovery or any compliance of foreign court order. The Central Authority will automatically under the federation, control the Enforcement Agencies for all purposes relevant to the Convention.

Now, Pakistan is at receiving end to entertain applications from contracting states and to share information with all member states in compliance of Article 6 and Article 7 and other relevant articles of the Hague Convention. The country immediately needs acceptance and recognition from other contracting states of the Convention in order to respond to their queries with these arrangements which can be operational if the international community responds quickly and allows Pakistan to acclimatize to the international standards. However the arrangement done by Pakistan seems to be quite satisfactory considering that it is a third world country.

In a very short span of time Pakistan has managed to make tremendous arrangements and sincerely respond to the international community and its standards to perform the duties and obligations. It is not possible for Pakistan to respond as eagerly as it is looking forward to, and its efforts may go fruitless, if the contracting states do not take quick measures in accepting Pakistan’s accession to the Convention, the very purpose of this ratification will be delayed and frustrated for left behind parents.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding parental abduction to or from Pakistan feel free to contact us 24 / 7.  We are always available at contact@abpworld.com or by calling our offices – +1 (805) CHILD-11 (+18052445311)

India / USA: Indian Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case on U.S. Child Abduction



The Indian Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on parental child abduction, brought about by several Indian American parents and supported by the U.S.-based non-profit organization Bring Our Kids Home.

Bring Our Kids Home has filed a petition with the court, urging it to create legal guidelines by which to adjudicate international parental child abduction cases.

India has the second highest number of pending child abduction cases from the U.S. and has been cited by the U.S. Department of State for non-cooperation in resolving pending cases since 2015, noted the organization in a social media statement.

The U.S. State Department issued a report noting that 1,000 American children are annually removed from their homes and moved across international borders; less than half are ever returned home.

India is the number one country for parental international child abductions, according to the State Department. From 2010 to 2014, 173 cases were registered; only 22 cases have been resolved, with the abducted child returning home.

“We hope to seek effective legal remedies in India, to help all victims of international parental child abduction and reunite all abducted children from around the world wrongfully retained in India,” stated BOKH.

Parental child abduction is a form of child abuse, violates the rights of victimized children and the parent who is left behind, in violation of U.S. and international law, noted the organization.

The Indian Supreme Court Dec. 1 asked the government of India to explain its stand on the issue.

Four co-litigants were named in the petition: Ruchika Abbi, a Virginia based mother whose daughter was allegedly abducted to India by her father in 2014; Siminder Kaur, a Tennessee-based mother of a child who was allegedly wrongfully retained in India but was reunited with her three-year-old son this year; Nihar Panda, a California-based father whose daughter reportedly was abducted to India by her mother in 2013; and Vikram Jagtiani, co-founder of Bring Our Kids Home, a New York-based father whose daughter was allegedly abducted to India in 2014 by her mother; Jagtiani has had no contact with his daughter for several months.

The organization noted that arbitrary standards are applied by courts in India with regards to international child abduction cases, making the country a “safe haven” for abductors from throughout the world.

“Children abducted to India are often retained with expired passports and/or fraudulently acquired Indian visas. Indian authorities are unresponsive,” noted Panda, adding that India’s Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Women and Child Development or the Ministry of Home Affairs provide no mechanism where child abduction cases can be registered within India, nor is there an administrative body or process to assist in child recovery.

Kaur noted that the vast majority of children abducted to India are Indian American U.S. citizens.


If you have any questions or concerns regarding parental abduction to India feel free to contact us 24 / 7.  We are always available at contact@abpworld.com or by calling our offices – +1 (805) CHILD-11 (+18052445311)


USA: Woman who fled to Japan with son amid custody battle avoids jail time


Eileen Tojo faced up to five years in prison for illegally taking her infant son to Japan amid a bitter custody battle.

She fled in 2013 and only returned last year.

“I know I was wrong, but I felt it was the only thing I could do to protect my children,” said Tojo, in a tearful plea to Circuit Court Judge Karen Nakasone.

Nakasone allowed her to avoid prison time Thursday, with a deferred acceptance of a no contest plea.

Prosecutors had argued for time behind bars, saying she was a danger to children and that claims of abuse were unsubstantiated.

“In the state’s opinion and the ends of justice and welfare of society do require that she suffer the penalty imposed by law,” said Prosecutor Rafael Renteria. “In the state’s opinion, she’s a danger to children.”

Tojo fled the country with her son during a custody dispute with the boy’s father, sparking an international missing child search.

Tojo hasn’t seen her son since July, when she was arrested at Honolulu’s airport.

Now it’s up to the family court to decide if and when she can see her son again.

“With today’s sentencing done, it’s one step moving forward. That means a lot to me,” she said.

The judge acknowledged the years of turmoil for the boy’s father and grandparents.

They were not in court Thursday, but wrote letters to the judge.

Nakasone said Tojo accepted responsibility and had already spent five weeks behind bars.

“The character and attitude of the defendant indicate that she is unlikely to commit another crime. She does appear to be remorseful of her crime,” Nakasone said.

“She basically is a good person who made a mistake,” said defense attorney Tommy Waters.

If Tojo follows the rules of her probation for four years, she won’t have a criminal record.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding parental abduction to Japan feel free to contact us 24 / 7.  We are always available at contact@abpworld.com or by calling our offices – +1 (805) CHILD-11 (+18052445311)

USA: Mom flees with 6-year-old girl during court-supervised visit, police say



Police in suburban Oak Park have issued a national plea for help locating a 6-year-old girl who was taken by her mother from a restaurant during a court-supervised visit.

Wendy Jarvis, 41, fled with her daughter, Zoe Stegmeyer, through the back door of an Oak Park restaurant around 11:15 a.m. on Saturday, December 16, according to Oak Park police.

The court visitation supervisor told police that Jarvis said she was taking her daughter to the restroom, but instead took her daughter out through a rear door from the restaurant kitchen. The supervisor said she attempted to follow them, but lost sight of the pair in the vicinity of Pleasant and Marion Streets in Oak Park.

The missing child has blonde, shoulder-length hair and was last seen wearing a black quilted jacket, a black shirt with a heart on the front, black leggings, black boots and pink gloves. Police said she is 3’4″ tall and weighs around 45 pounds.

Police said Jarvis, of Oak Park, is involved in a custody battle with the child’s father. Jarvis has brown hair and hazel eyes and was last seen wearing a gray, three-quarter length pea coat, a green sweatshirt and a black knit cap. She is 5’2″ tall and around 144 pounds.

Investigators have conducted an extensive search of the area, including Jarvis’ home, but turned up no clues as to their whereabouts.

Police said Jarvis’ parents live in Clarkston, Michigan, about 42 miles northwest of Detroit. Jarvis was not known to have access to a vehicle.

Police said the circumstances of the parental abduction did not meet the criteria for an AMBER Alert, but anyone with information is urged to call the Oak Park Police Department at 708.386.3800. Information may be provided anonymously by calling 708.434.1636 or online at www.oak-park.us/crimetip.

USA / India: India-US custody battle puts spotlight on child ‘abductions’ by parents



On Friday last week, India’s Supreme Court began to hear a petition calling for guidelines to resolve such ‘abductions’ across international borders, and for the Indian government to join the Hague Convention on Child Abduction, an international treaty in force since 1983

Siminder Kaur and Vaneet Singh have fought over custody of their son Anhad for almost two years, both in courts in India, where the separated couple are from, and in courts in the United States, where they now live.

Their battle dates back to 2015 when the couple left Anhad, then two years old, with Mr Singh’s parents in the north Indian city of Mohali, returning to the US where they hoped to work on their marriage. Once they initiated divorce proceedings in 2016, however, Mr Singh refused to return Anhad to Ms Kaur, claiming that she was mentally ill and an alcoholic; in turn, she argued that he was physically abusive and had wrested Anhad from her.

But what started out as a family dispute has now taken on a much bigger shape. On Friday last week, India’s Supreme Court began to hear a petition filed by Ms Kaur, along with a father in a similar position and a US-based organisation called Bring Our Kids Home (BOKH), which is made up of roughly two dozen parents who claim children have been abducted by their spouses and taken to India.

The petition urges the court to frame guidelines to resolve such “abductions”, and calls upon the Indian government to join the Hague Convention on Child Abduction, an international treaty in force since 1983.


The Convention, which aims to return children to the country from which they were taken and to ensure that custody disputes are dealt with in that country’s courts, has 98 countries as signatories. India isn’t among them, but a government-appointed committee is holding public hearings to make recommendations about joining the treaty.

“There’s a misconception that these children are being taken ‘back’ to India,” said one of BOKH’s founders, who asked to remain anonymous because his own litigation involving a child abducted by his wife is ongoing. “But most of these children are American-born. Their homes were always the US, never India.”

Such abduction cases are alleged worldwide. Last year, a woman in Australia was imprisoned after being charged with kidnapping her two children and taking them from her estranged husband. She was later released after being ordered by the court to pay compensation.

But although abduction cases are by no means exclusive to certain countries, nearly 23 per cent of the applications filed every year under the Hague Convention deal with children being taken out of the US.

Roughly 1,000 American children are “abducted” overseas by a parent annually, according to US state department statistics. In January 2016, the department had 83 open cases of reported abductions to India, 25 of which had been filed the previous year.

Of all the parents who take their children to other countries globally, nearly 70 per cent are women, according to Hague Convention statistics.

Several Indian lawyers representing mothers who have returned to India with their children after fleeing domestic abuse argue that The Hague Convention does not protect such women.

“Under the Convention, these women don’t get to argue the merits of their case before they and their children are ordered back out of India,” Suranya Aiyar, a lawyer in New Delhi, told The National. “They’re asked to first go back and then make these arguments in the courts of the country that they left in the first place.”

Such situations are fraught with danger and difficulty. Women may often be returning to a home where they have faced physical or emotional abuse. They may also not have the resources to fight lawsuits in the US, especially if their husbands or ex-husbands were the wage-earners in their families.

Mothers worry that through such lawsuits, the fathers of their children will impel US consular officials to pursue action in India, Ms Aiyar said.

“I’ve had mothers calling me, scared that the police will knock on their doors at any moment,” she said. “They aren’t even willing to be on a private email chain or a WhatsApp group, because they’re afraid any public exposure will result in their kids being taken from them.”

Under current Indian law, the only recourse for parents whose children have been taken to India is the filing of a lawsuit in Indian courts.

Ms Aiyar believes this is sufficient, saying: “We already have laws and mechanisms for such disputes.”

BOKH’s co-founder disagrees, however, saying that only a minority of cases of abducted children involve spousal violence.

“We aren’t condoning that, of course, but we have to see it as a separate issue,” he said. “There are plenty of organisations right here in the US where a person being subjected to abuse can go to seek help.”

Parents also flee to India knowing that litigation in courts there is likely to drag on for years, he said. “It makes it more likely for a judge to say at the end of it all that the kid has gotten accustomed to India and should stay there.”

Anil Malhotra, a Chandigarh-based lawyer who has represented several parents overseas whose spouses have taken their children away to India, said an international platform like the Hague Convention was essential because the issue is international in scope.

At present, resolving disputes in multiple court systems becomes lengthy and expensive, harming the child’s welfare. “The present situation plays into the hands of the abducting parent,” Mr Malhotra said.

Ms Kaur too says in her petition to the Indian Supreme Court that the odds were stacked against her. Despite this, however, a US court has returned Anhad to Ms Kaur for the time being, even as her custody case continues. Mr Singh was threatened with arrest but Ms Kaur agreed to drop her charges against him if Anhad was returned to her.

Escorted by an FBI team, Ms Kaur met her son at the airport gate when he landed in the US earlier this year, and she picked him up as soon as she saw him. Her arms, she said in her petition to the Indian supreme court, grew sore from holding and carrying her son, “but that pain was the sweetest pain she [had] felt in a long time”.


 If you have any questions or concerns regarding parental abduction to or from India feel free to contact us 24 / 7.  We are always available at contact@abpworld.com or by calling our offices – +1 (805) CHILD-11 (+18052445311)

India: Courts can turn down child repatriation, says Supreme Court


For welfare of the child, Indian courts can deny repatriation of children involved in cross-border parental abduction, says the Supreme Court.

A Supreme Court judgment delivered on Wednesday accords courts in India unlimited discretion to determine which parent should have the custody of minor children involved in international parental child abduction.

The verdict holds that Indian courts can decline the relief of repatriation of a child to the parent living abroad even if a foreign court, located in the country from where the child was removed, has already passed orders for the child’s repatriation.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy held that the welfare of the child was the “paramount and predominant” consideration when such a case came up before a court here.

The judgment, authored by Justice Roy, observed that welfare of the child came first over the repatriation order of the foreign court as India was not a signatory to the Hague Convention of “The Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction”.

“The principle of comity of courts is not to be accorded a yielding primacy or dominance over the welfare and well-being of the child,” the apex court held.

A court, regardless of the repatriation order of the foreign court concerned, can refuse repatriation to the parent settled abroad if it is “satisfied that the child is already settled in its “new environment” in India or if repatriation would expose the child to physical harm or if the child would be placed in an “intolerable or unbearable situation” back with the parent settled abroad, and finally, if the child, on attaining maturity, objects to going back.

The judgment came in a case where the father took the younger of the two sons from his wife’s custody in the United States and came to India. The mother’s version was that he had taken the boy on the pretext of visiting the neighbourhood mall. A U.S. Court upheld her lawful custody and ordered the man to return his son to his wife.

The Supreme Court concluded that the boy, who is five-and-a-half years old, has settled in India, studying in a reputed school here and enjoys his extended family. The apex court allowed the father to retain his son in India, while noting that the parents are frequently in touch over e-mail. Uprooting the boy from his present situation may be counter-productive, the apex court held.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding parental abduction to or from India feel free to contact us 24 / 7.  We are always available at contact@abpworld.com or by calling our offices – +1 (805) CHILD-11 (+18052445311)