need not determine whether either the commissioner or the superior court correctly computed the time under CR 6(a), however, because here the doctrine of equitable tolling brings Iturribarria’s claim within the one-year deadline. ¶27 Federal courts have applied the doctrine of equitable tolling where a parent has concealed the removal of their child. Thus, the one-year limit under article 12 did not begin until the petitioner, here Iturribarria, confirms the child’s new residence. As noted by the 11th Circuit: We agree with the district court that equitable tolling may apply to ICARA petitions for the return of a child where the parent removing the child has secreted the child from the parent seeking return. See Mendez Lynch v. Mendez Lynch, 220 F.Supp.2d 1347, 1362-63 (M.D.Fla.2002) (<HOLDING>) .... Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F.3d 702, 723 (11th
holding that equitable tolling applied to icara petitions because otherwise a parent who abducts and conceals children for more than one year will be rewarded for the misconduct by creating eligibility for an affirmative defense not otherwise available holding  727d1 complaint was untimely and noting the one year period for filing runs from discharge rather than discovery of the fraud but not addressing expressly equitable tolling holding that a prior north carolina conviction was for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year if any defendant charged with that crime could receive a sentence of more than one year holding that equitable tolling is available for petitions filed pursuant to 28 usc  2255 recognizing that the court sanctions more harshly for cumulative misconduct than for isolated misconduct