Japan Will Sign Hague Convention On Child Abduction

[kusai Jijii]

No worries Ryan.
I feel for you.
KJ

[Ryan_Borger]

No worries Ryan.
I feel for you.
KJ

I appreciate that. Just frustrating when people seem to think they have special foresight to see into the future and realize ahead of time this would happen.

[kusai Jijii]

I appreciate that. Just frustrating when people seem to think they have special foresight to see into the future and realize ahead of time this would happen.

I aint religous, but I try to live by the following maxim:

"there but for the grace of God go I"

So who the fuck is anyone to judge?

KJ

[ekalmus]

I have been fighting this issue for years, as many of you know. Two of my films have received warm welcome on FG, and I thank you all for your support. The fight is not over - but the main battle has been won.

As we all know the Japanese Government is far from perfect, but they rarely go back on their word. By 2010 we should have needed laws in place to protect.

There have been some questions about current cases, and through out the history of the Hague Convention there is no help for those with cases prior to the laws being put into place. The Hague Convention is not retroactive...but the US Government (State Department - OCI) has stated that they will assist in the current cases.

This is a huge step forward and perhaps my son (the one with the sign "Japan took my sister") will be able to meet amy soon enough - http://www.amykalmus.com

Thank you Japan for stepping up and becoming a member of the worlds community. I am thrilled that I can start buying Japanese cars again

Eric Kalmus

[Mulboyne]

The Guardian ran this piece last week. The journalist seems to think that Japan will drag its feet on signing the Hague convention and quotes a Foreign Ministry spokesman saying it is still under review. The Asahi article at the top of this thread suggested it could happen in 2010 and it's unclear whether the quoted statement is supposed to be at odds with that forecast.

Custody battle in Japan highlights loophole in child abduction cases

Shane Clarke had no reason to be suspicious when his wife took their two children to Japan to see their ill grandmother in January. The couple had married four years earlier after meeting online, and settled down with their daughters, aged three and one, in the west Midlands. Clarke, they agreed, would join his family in Japan in May for a holiday, and they would all return together. Last week, however, he faced his wife and her lawyer in a Japanese courtroom, uncertain if he would ever see his children again. When his wife left the UK, Clarke now believes, she never had any intention of returning with him, or of letting her children see him. "From the moment I met her at Narita airport I knew something was wrong," Clarke told the Guardian before a custody hearing in Mito, north of Tokyo. "I soon realised she'd played me like a grand piano. The whole thing had been orchestrated," he claims.

Clarke, a 38-year-old management consultant from West Bromwich, has gone to great lengths to win custody. The Crown Prosecution Service said his wife could be prosecuted in the UK under the 1984 child abduction act. However, he can expect little sympathy from Japanese courts, which do not recognise parental child abduction as a crime and habitually rule in favour of the custodial - Japanese - parent. Japan is the only G7 nation not to have signed the 1980 Hague convention on civil aspects of child abduction, which requires parents accused of abducting their children to return them to their country of habitual residence. He is one of an estimated 10,000 parents, divorced or separated from their Japanese spouses, who have been denied access to their children. Since the Hague treaty came into effect, not a single ruling in Japan has gone in favour of the foreign parent.

Campaigners say Japan's refusal to join the treaty's 80 other signatories has turned it into a haven for child abductors. The European Union, Canada and the US have urged Japan to sign, but Takao Tanase, a law professor at Chuo University, says international pressure is unlikely to have much impact. "In Japan, if the child is secure in its new environment and doesn't want more disruption, family courts don't believe that it is in the child's best interest to force it to see the non-custodial parent," he said. Japanese courts prefer to leave it to divorced couples to negotiate custody arrangements, Takase said. Officials say the government is looking at signing the Hague treaty, though not soon. "We recognise that the convention is a useful tool to secure children's rights and we are seriously considering the possibility of signing the convention, but we've yet to reach a conclusion," said Yasuhisa Kawamura, a foreign ministry spokesman. "We understand the anxieties of international parents, but there is no difference between the western approach and ours."

Clarke's two custody hearings this week did not go well. An interpreter arranged by the foreign office failed to materialise. The British embassy in Tokyo provided him with a list of alternative interpreters but said it could offer no more help. The judge was forced to postpone his ruling, but Clarke is convinced he will never see his daughters again. "We are talking about two British citizens, and no one will help me. The message our government is sending out to foreign nationals is that it's perfectly all right for them to commit a crime on British soil, and as long as they leave the country quickly enough, they'll get away scot-free."

Backstory

The rise in the number of parental child abductions has been fuelled by a dramatic increase in marriages between Japanese and foreign nationals. According to the health and welfare ministry, there were 44,701 such marriages in 2006, compared with 7,261 in 1980, the vast majority between Japanese and Chinese, Koreans and Filipinos. An estimated 20,000 children are born to Japanese-foreign couples every year. Though Japan does not keep an official count, there are 47 unresolved cases of US children being taken to Japan - only Mexico and India are more popular destinations - and 30 involving Canadian citizens. British officials are dealing with 10 cases, a foreign office spokeswoman told the Guardian, including that of Shane Clarke

[maraboutslim]

I appreciate that. Just frustrating when people seem to think they have special foresight to see into the future and realize ahead of time this would happen.

Maybe that's because we always realize this kind of thing can happen, while you and other "victims" talk like they'd never even thought about the possiblity and are totally shocked and amazed at the situation they are in. The rest of us knew what we were getting in to and realized what all the potential scenarios were.

All spouses of Japanese should understand how Japan works and that the Japanese government nearly always sides with the mother. And that of course our own countries government has no legal standing to operate within Japan and all that.

That knowledge should be factored in to any potential relationship and one's daily actions once in that relationship. No one out there owes you any help in keeping access to your kids. It's on you. We've got our own shit to deal with. (including Japanese wives and kids). Besides, we have no idea what your real situation is: maybe some of these guys are real assholes that shouldn't be anywhere near their kids: or they could be saints and their wives really did just trip out on them for no reason. We have no way of knowing. So sympathy, much less help, is hard to hand out. Someone else's family is just none of our business. And in my opinion is no business of the government (hers or mine) either.

Having said that, best of luck fixing it all now.

[james]

won't make an ad-hominem attack but i think this post of yours just sucks.

Maybe that's because we always realize this kind of thing can happen, while you and other "victims" talk like they'd never even thought about the possiblity and are totally shocked and amazed at the situation they are in. The rest of us knew what we were getting in to and realized what all the potential scenarios were.

oh really? you speak for all of us? personally, i had no idea until well after i was married and my wife was pregnant with our first that this was the situation in japan. it's not something you really consider when on the dating scene and in a relationship that leads to marriage. sorry, but "is she a citizen of a country signatory to the hague?" isn't the first thing that pops into my mind when meeting someone for the first time. and then what? call off the wedding?

All spouses of Japanese should understand how Japan works and that the Japanese government nearly always sides with the mother. And that of course our own countries government has no legal standing to operate within Japan and all that.

first, that should read "sides with the japanese parent" as there are plenty of mothers who have been screwed over too.

yeah, his children were taken from him illegally and he has no recourse to get them back yet you make it into an issue of personal responsibility on his part? rather audacious if you ask me. i agree that knowing the situation in japan and the risks involved would have helped, he perhaps could have gone with them, but i don't think he had any real reason to believe, when his wife left with their (wtf does the article read "her"?) children that she wasn't coming back.

That knowledge should be factored in to any potential relationship and one's daily actions once in that relationship. No one out there owes you any help in keeping access to your kids. It's on you. We've got our own shit to deal with. (including Japanese wives and kids). Besides, we have no idea what your real situation is: maybe some of these guys are real assholes that shouldn't be anywhere near their kids: or they could be saints and their wives really did just trip out on them for no reason. We have no way of knowing. So sympathy, much less help, is hard to hand out. Someone else's family is just none of our business. And in my opinion is no business of the government (hers or mine) either.

bullshit, of the 100% premium grade. let's all not give a fuck, that'll make things better.

[maraboutslim]

In general, it would be nice that instead of commenting on someone else's post and trying to rip it apart, it would be better if you simply just stated your own opinion and let yours and theirs hang out there for anyone else to read, enjoy, despise, whatever. This is especially the case when the topic at hand is merely a matter of opinion and therefore doesn't have a "right" or "wrong" to correct as would be the case in a discussion of factual matters.

But since you took the other tack, allow me to further clarify my opinion.

personally, i had no idea until well after i was married and my wife was pregnant with our first that this was the situation in japan. it's not something you really consider when on the dating scene and in a relationship that leads to marriage. sorry, but "is she a citizen of a country signatory to the hague?" isn't the first thing that pops into my mind when meeting someone for the first time. and then what? call off the wedding?

This is not high school puppy love we're talking about. It's serious business! Bringing another human being into the world. To me it's just common sense that before doing that one better be damn sure they know their spouses culture and laws, speak the language of their spouse, be prepared to live in that country if necessary, and so on.

yeah, his children were taken from him illegally and he has no recourse to get them back yet you make it into an issue of personal responsibility on his part?

He has recourse. Just not government sponsored recourse. Personally, I didn't need government help to meet my wife, to live with her to see how compatible we were, to marry her, then have kids with her after a few years, and maintain (so far) a 15 year marriage - I can't imagine needing their help to work out whatever relationship issue might crop up in the future. It's my responsibility to maintain a friendly relationship with my wife and keep my kids living with me. No one else owes me any help in that regard. It's none of their business.

If you feel differently, then just please post your own opinion on its own and let it hang out there for all to see. There is no need to juxtapose your opinion with mine by arguing against me paragraph by paragaph. After all, it's ridiculous to think that everyone should agree with you so you need to argue against any opposing opinion that is posted. Just leave me to my opinion, express your own, and we won't have to waste any time with this back and forth. Thanks.

[Behan]

In general, it would be nice that instead of commenting on someone else's post and trying to rip it apart,....

Just leave me to my opinion, express your own, and we won't have to waste any time with this back and forth. Thanks.

Isn't this kind of what you are doing, too?

[Greji]

as there are plenty of mothers who have been screwed over too.

Very true. Just did one last night and she was not to shabby....

I probably go along with James on the view that I didn't marry my wife because she was a Japanese and a non-signatory to various conventions. I married her because I was in love with her and wanted her to be my wife. Six kids later, I've been kinda hoping she'd run off with the kids at bill paying time, but she's smart enough to know she'd have to go to work and refuses to leave the house for anything except shopping.

I think what James is taking offense with Slim's post is that the way written, Slim kinda of referred to a marriage as a contract with the party of the first part and the party of the second part. I can see where James is coming from, but I don't think that was what he meant. More of just simply keeping your eyes open and being aware of how the real world actuates.

That might be over simplifying it, but that's my take.

Having said that I think I will go look for another mother tonight.....

[james]

This is not high school puppy love we're talking about. It's serious business! Bringing another human being into the world. To me it's just common sense that before doing that one better be damn sure they know their spouses culture and laws, speak the language of their spouse, be prepared to live in that country if necessary, and so on.

allow me to continue to juxtapose my opinions alongside yours. that's what debate is, and imho it'd be a pretty damn boring forum if everyone had the same opinion on everything.

the best of relationships, even those with full disclosure, cultural and linguistic accomodation on both sides and best intents can and often do turn sour. it's not something that can necessarily be forseen and it's not always someone simply being an asshole / bitch - things simply don't work out.

there are many cases of amicable divorce where the parents set their differences aside to make things as easy on the children as possible. sadly though this is often not the case and children become pawns, told lies about the other parent to estrange them or are simply whisked away.

He has recourse. Just not government sponsored recourse.

what recourse then? hire thugs to get his kids back? should he try to re-abuct them himself? parental abduction is not a crime in japan unless you're foreign. i'm guessing you know this.

so i ask - if a parent has a sole / joint custody agreement or order and the other parent / ex-spouse simply offs and leaves with the child(ren) illegally to another country, why shouldn't he have legal recourse?

i really see this as being more than a simple relationship problem.

[Behan]

I had a good laugh reading your post, Greji, but what really caught my eye was:

[SIZE="7"][color="Red"]Six kids later[/color][/SIZE], I've been kinda hoping she'd run off with the kids at bill paying time, but she's smart enough to know she'd have to go to work and refuses to leave the house for anything except shopping.

Otsukaresama.

[Greji]

I had a good laugh reading your post, Greji, but what really caught my eye was:



Otsukaresama.

Six is all I admit to....

[maraboutslim]

allow me to continue to juxtapose my opinions alongside yours. that's what debate is, and imho it'd be a pretty damn boring forum if everyone had the same opinion on everything.

You missed my point. Of course we all have different opinions. My post was about my opinion. The problem I'm having is that your post was also about my opinion. Instead, your post should have been about your opinion. If you have an opinion on the issue under discussion, then just state it. Why do you give a shit about what anyone else's opinion is and feel the need to criticize it? Tit for tat style "debate" is lame. "You said this and you're full of shit..." is just shallow. Take a moment to write your own post stating your own opinion regardless of what other people's opinions are. You don't need to say what you believe by contrasting it line by line with what you don't.

what recourse then? hire thugs to get his kids back?

Don't be silly. (Though I suppose to me that'd be preferable to asking a government to do the same thing!) We shouldn't be talking about this one guy's case: I don't know him from adam. I'm not trying to be personal in anything I've written. I'm trying to speak of generalities relating to international marriages and custody problems. Anyhoo... in general, the type of recourse people have is to come to an agreement with the other parent and relatives. Work it out. Will this be successful? Maybe not. Though it's pretty rare for a perfectly nice, stable, successful parent to be kept away from his/her kids by the other parent. It's always retribution for something or out of fear of the other spouse or out of fear of having their own custody rights taken away by the other parent.

so i ask - if a parent has a sole / joint custody agreement or order and the other parent / ex-spouse simply offs and leaves with the child(ren) illegally to another country, why shouldn't he have legal recourse?

Because one country's laws don't apply to other countries. Furthermore, why should the court order received in one spouse's country carry any more weight than the court order that the other spouse would receive in her country? What if uk says kids go with father and japan (either through court order or just de-facto cultural practice that we know would be the outcome of any legal hearing in japan as soon as one is held) says kids stay with mother: Both are legal. How do you decide which one to "enforce"? That's why "legal recourse" isn't even worth talking about in these kinds of cases).

[james]

in general, the type of recourse people have is to come to an agreement with the other parent and relatives. Work it out. Will this be successful? Maybe not.

and when it's often not? if it were it wouldn't be an issue or as much of an issue in the first place. what would you do if your wife suddenly, without warning took off with the kids, disappeared and your efforts to see and contact them were stymied and stonewalled at every turn by her relatives, the japanese police, the so-called family court system which exists to do little more than berate the foreign spouse and to treat them like a criminal? then what?

Though it's pretty rare for a perfectly nice, stable, successful parent to be kept away from his/her kids by the other parent. It's always retribution for something or out of fear of the other spouse or out of fear of having their own custody rights taken away by the other parent.

rare but by no means unheard of. and when the other parent is not so nice and stable? i've seen this first hand (not japan, thankfully). i personally don't think it's always out of fear or retribution and that was certainly not the case in what i witnessed. it was a heaping dose of selfishness thrown into the mix.

Because one country's laws don't apply to other countries.

that's what international agreements are (needed) for. i may be wrong on this, but it's my understanding that in countries signatory to the hague, the order issued by the judge in country where the proceeding is initially filed is binding.

How do you decide which one to "enforce"? That's why "legal recourse" isn't even worth talking about in these kinds of cases).

why should a japanese spouse be aided and abetted by the government of japan and given a carte blanche to go into hiding with the kids simply because (s)he summarily decides to do so?

[maraboutslim]

for the simple reason that as far as the government of japan is concerned, the kids belong with the japanese parent. that parent is not doing anything illegal whatsoever as far as japanese law goes. so what is there for the japanese government to do? nothing.

here's an idea: instead of trying to apply foreign ways of doing things to japan, why not just marry a person from a country whose laws you agree with?

[kusai Jijii]

here's an idea: instead of trying to apply foreign ways of doing things to japan, why not just marry a person from a country whose laws you agree with?

For someone who preaches so much about cultural relativity, you really have not the lightest clue about cross/ inter-cultural relations do you?

[FG Lurker]

for the simple reason that as far as the government of japan is concerned, the kids belong with the japanese parent. that parent is not doing anything illegal whatsoever as far as japanese law goes. so what is there for the japanese government to do? nothing.

here's an idea: instead of trying to apply foreign ways of doing things to japan, why not just marry a person from a country whose laws you agree with?

Expanding on this line of thought a bit, Japan can be part of the world community when it suits Japan (eg world trade) but the rest of the world should just accept that Japan is "different" when something isn't of benefit to Japan?

You may find such a take-take relationship acceptable but generally I prefer my relationships to have a bit more of a give-take balance.

[james]

for the simple reason that as far as the government of japan is concerned, the kids belong with the japanese parent. that parent is not doing anything illegal whatsoever as far as japanese law goes. so what is there for the japanese government to do? nothing.

oh, ok. duh. i get it now. stupid fotb dumbass gaijin that i am. all this time i was thinking it was wrong for a japanese parent to do this, with the courts, government and cops aiding and abetting, when really i was just being culturally insensitive.

[maraboutslim]

For someone who preaches so much about cultural relativity, you really have not the lightest clue about cross/ inter-cultural relations do you?

What's there to know? I lived in japan, I know Japanese, I married a Japanese, we've lived in both of our native countries, we have two typical bilingual kids, and so on. About 17 years experience. If I know nothing about such relationships work, then I guess it's just dumb luck that I haven't needed any help from outsiders so far, huh?

[maraboutslim]

oh, ok. duh. i get it now. stupid fotb dumbass gaijin that i am. all this time i was thinking it was wrong for a japanese parent to do this, with the courts, government and cops aiding and abetting, when really i was just being culturally insensitive.

What is the difference between the Japanese government saying the wife can keep custody and another country saying the husband gets custody? Why just criticize japan instead of critcizing the other country for making an equally unilateral decission?

That's why government isn't a solution for these kinds of situations. If they disagree, we've gotten nowhere.

[Behan]

What is the difference between the Japanese government saying the wife can keep custody and another country saying the husband gets custody? Why just criticize japan instead of critcizing the other country for making an equally unilateral decission?

Japanese court (almost?) always give custody to the Japanese parent, but is this true in other countries?
Plus, Japanese courts ignore foreign court decisions and refuse to return children or hand over parents who are wanted by the police for fleeing with their children to Japan. They ignore foreign arrest warrants.
If you read through the articles on this topic you will see there is a big difference.

That's why government isn't a solution for these kinds of situations. If they disagree, we've gotten nowhere.

You might be right, but if you defy court orders you would risk arrest.

[maraboutslim]

Japanese court (almost?) always give custody to the Japanese parent, but is this true in other countries?

Here's the thing about international marriages and custody issues: one has a tremendous advantage in their own country. I know for sure that i could mount a stronger case for custody in the u.s. than my wife could for several reasons: i'm a citizen, it's my culture and i know how the system works, it's in my native language, i have a longer history of employment and witnesses, the fact that financial considerations are given more weight, etc.. Conversely, she would have a stronger case for custody if the case was heard in japan for the similar reasons, and because the bias is towards female custody, etc.

Because of this, it doesn't seem fair to me to take a court decision one has received in his own country and expect it to apply to his spouse who is a citizen of another country that may view the custody arrangement very differently.

Plus, Japanese courts ignore foreign court decisions and refuse to return children or hand over parents who are wanted by the police for fleeing with their children to Japan. They ignore foreign arrest warrants.
If you read through the articles on this topic you will see there is a big difference.

Just remember that to the Japanese courts, the parent wasn't "fleeing with their children." They haven't committed any crime that Japan recognizes. They were just going home with their children, to the place that the japanese government feels is best for the children to be. Considering this, of course the government would ignore foreign arrest warrants.

All these things may seem unfair compared to what one would experience if their spouse was of their same citizenship. But that's the reality of marrying someone from a different country. We all should know this going in.

[Behan]

Here's the thing about international marriages and custody issues: one has a tremendous advantage in their own country. I know for sure that i could mount a stronger case for custody in the u.s. than my wife could for several reasons: i'm a citizen, it's my culture and i know how the system works, it's in my native language, i have a longer history of employment and witnesses, the fact that financial considerations are given more weight, etc.. Conversely, she would have a stronger case for custody if the case was heard in japan for the similar reasons, and because the bias is towards female custody, etc.

Can't argue with you about having an advantage but it seems like the Japanese parent almost always wins the case, even when the foreign parent has won custody in his/her own country.
I would suspect that a Japanese parent has a better chance overseas than a foreign parent does here.

Because of this, it doesn't seem fair to me to take a court decision one has received in his own country and expect it to apply to his spouse who is a citizen of another country that may view the custody arrangement very differently.

Just remember that to the Japanese courts, the parent wasn't "fleeing with their children." They haven't committed any crime that Japan recognizes. They were just going home with their children, to the place that the japanese government feels is best for the children to be. Considering this, of course the government would ignore foreign arrest warrants.

Basically, I agree, but if countries don't respect each others' laws or court decisions, couldn't this lead to parents abducting and re-abducting their children. We could also flip this around and view this as a case of extraterritoriality. 'I don't have to obey their laws because that law doesn't exist in my country." Actually, Japan does award custody to parents, however.

Until the Japanese court has (gone through the motions of) heard (hearing) the case, it can't be said that the courts feel the Japanese parent can provide a better home.
Joint custody seems to be a 'foreign' concept here so I think that, actually, if a non-custodial parent ran off with the children they would be in violation of the law. I don't know if there is any criminal punishment or not.

All these things may seem unfair compared to what one would experience if their spouse was of their same citizenship. But that's the reality of marrying someone from a different country. We all should know this going in.

I agree that we should all know what the situation is like before marrying but I don't the playing field is even.
I have a son with a Japanese woman and if a Japanese court awarded her custody but I ran off with him to the US, I would suspect that a US court might order him returned. In the reverse situation she would get away with it and I might not have any access to him until he was an adult. Not that I am planning on getting divorced soon. I think anyway.

[james]

it's extremely lopsided. lopsided doesn't do the situation justice. the only requirement for being awarded custody in japan is that you be japanese. it's not "most of the time", "damn near almost always" or even "99%". it's 100% or better in favour of the japanese spouse and joint custody does not exist.

if i'm wrong, show me a single court-ordered case where the foreign parent was awarded custody and i'll give you your 99.9999999999%. which is still beyond abysmal.

there are cases of grandparents being given de-facto custody.

[Mulboyne]

Slim, I can certainly understand your point about going into a relationship with your eyes wide open. Even more so when it comes to having a baby which is not a decision to be taken lightly. If someone's partner comes from a very different culture then it would be surprising if they hadn't at least given some thought to where and how to bring up a child. Unless you leave it entirely to fate, it seems like these days you have to plan their education almost as soon as the umbilical cord is cut.

However, if someone's in the position where their partner has defied a court order, absconded with the children and gone into hiding in their home country then there's no real point saying "I wouldn't start from here". You suggest that people should look to their own resources rather than relying on the state to help them but surely there is something resourceful about banding together with others who have similar problems and exhorting the state to recognize an injustice and find some remedies. If that kind of activity isn't allowed in your book then I'm not sure how you think laws should get changed in a society.

If Japan signs the Hague convention, it will be because foreign governments have exerted pressure in response to pressure brought to bear by their own citizens. It may also be because Japanese citizens are increasingly finding themselves in a similar position. International marriage with foreign nationals from mainland China and the Philippines is far more common in Japan than with partners from other G8 nations and neither country is a signatory to the convention. If Japan wishes to raise this effectively as an issue in response to pressure from its own citizens then it will probably need to become a signatory itself.

[Behan]

International marriage with foreign nationals from mainland China and the Philippines is far more common in Japan than with partners from other G8 nations and neither country is a signatory to the convention.

It would be interesting to hear about whether there have been any (or many) abductions to these countries.

(Hint, hint, Mulboyne...)

[American Oyaji]

then I guess it's just dumb luck that I haven't needed any help from outsiders so far, huh?

Basically.

[james]

It would be interesting to hear about whether there have been any (or many) abductions to these countries.

(Hint, hint, Mulboyne...)

well i'm not mulboyne, but fwiw.. the picture is not rosy in taiwan either.

Parental Abduction -- How has it been handled in Taiwan? (forum)

TAIWAN - CHILD ABDUCTION

interestingly enough, while china is not signatory, hk and macau are. a full list can be found here:

Hague Abduction Convention Country List

[james]

something i've also been meaning to mention - thusfar we've only discussed custody..

the problem extends beyond custody. at least in "western" countries, a non-custodial parent can be awarded and exercise visitation rights. at most in japan, a non-custodial parent would be awarded a token lip-service visitation right which is extremely meagre. sometimes on the order of a few hours per month, usually supervised, sometimes with surveillance and an agent present at all times. said visitation is not enforced, meaning the non-custodial parent is completely at the mercy and whim of the other.

an awkward if not impossible environment for an estranged child and parent to try to reconnect. i think to argue that this is by anything but design would be disingenuous.