Japan Will Sign Hague Convention On Child Abduction

[Mulboyne]

[maraboutslim]

There is of course always the option of maintaining one's visitation or joint custody "rights" by just maintaining a decent relationship with one's ex.

This is much better than relying on a court order, regardless of what country we're talking about.

[kusai Jijii]

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?

Fuck me. Where should I start? The post I have quoted above, as well as numerous of your other posts display just how poorly you grasp issues such as these. You clearly have this essentialist view of 'race' and 'ethnicity', you are constantly putting people into neat little boxes (us and them, the Japanese way of thinking, Americans are like this...etc) that its almost laughable. Did you read one too many of those idiotic 'How to do Buisness with the Japanese' books in the late '80s or something?

[maraboutslim]

Fuck me. Where should I start? The post I have quoted above, as well as numerous of your other posts display just how poorly you grasp issues such as these. You clearly have this essentialist view of 'race' and 'ethnicity', you are constantly putting people into neat little boxes (us and them, the Japanese way of thinking, Americans are like this...etc) that its almost laughable. Did you read one too many of those idiotic 'How to do Buisness with the Japanese' books in the late '80s or something?

Are you sure you're not thinking of someone else? That doesn't sound like me at all. I have on occasion spoken up against the idea that Japan should be forced to be exactly like the USA or whatever country the fucked gaijin posting was from. I believe people have the right to arrange their country as they sit fit, and visitors should keep their noses out of it. But this is quite different from the charge you are making.

I guess by "how poorly I grasp the issue," you simply mean "how different your opinion is from mine on this issue". So be it. They are just opinions. I'm not setting policy for anyone. It's up to you to live your life how you want, and I couldn't care less about what that looks like.

[kusai Jijii]

I believe people have the right to arrange their country as they sit fit, and visitors should keep their noses out of it.

You see Slim, thats exactly the kind of comment that I'm talking about. You seem to be completely unable to recognise the complexity and diversity within cultures and countries, not just between them. Do you really think that Japan (or America for that matter) is arranged as all the people within those countries see fit? Like some great big consential uniformed orgy? If you do, you have your head well and truely stuck up your arse.

[james]

There is of course always the option of maintaining one's visitation or joint custody "rights" by just maintaining a decent relationship with one's ex.

what part of "it's not always possible to maintain a decent relationship with one's ex" do you not understand?

[maraboutslim]

You see Slim, thats exactly the kind of comment that I'm talking about. You seem to be completely unable to recognise the complexity and diversity within cultures and countries, not just between them. Do you really think that Japan (or America for that matter) is arranged as all the people within those countries see fit? Like some great big consential uniformed orgy? If you do, you have your head well and truely stuck up your arse.

I think your problem is that you read a statement and then interpret it to whatever extreme that comes in handy for you to ridicule it. My comment says nothing to get you from it to what you recount above: you do that all on your own. The wheat growers in your town must be getting rich with all the strawmen you build.

Of course there is plenty of diversity within countries. But we are talking about laws here, no? Through one system or another (democracy, or whatever gets passed off for it these days, for example) they come to a conclusion on various laws that become "the way we operate." So it is not insane to generalize, or even speak very specifically, as we have been in this thread when we recount the way that custody issues are decided in Japan. All I argue against here is the constant whining by gaijin (debito, for example) about ways in which japan should be more like their home country.

what part of "it's not always possible to maintain a decent relationship with one's ex" do you not understand?

My opinion on these matters basically boils down to asking you: what part of "it's none of anyone else's business to get involved in someone else's relationship," do you not understand?

[james]

My opinion on these matters basically boils down to asking you: what part of "it's none of anyone else's business to get involved in someone else's relationship," do you not understand?

it's patently obvious you have zero grasp of the issue at hand.

[kusai Jijii]

I think your problem is that you read a statement and then interpret it to whatever extreme that comes in handy for you to ridicule it. My comment says nothing to get you from it to what you recount above: you do that all on your own. The wheat growers in your town must be getting rich with all the strawmen you build.

Of course there is plenty of diversity within countries. But we are talking about laws here, no? Through one system or another (democracy, or whatever gets passed off for it these days, for example) they come to a conclusion on various laws that become "the way we operate." So it is not insane to generalize, or even speak very specifically, as we have been in this thread when we recount the way that custody issues are decided in Japan. All I argue against here is the constant whining by gaijin (debito, for example) about ways in which japan should be more like their home country.

Best to not post while drunk Slim.

[Mulboyne]

[wuchan]

Hikaru was found and recovered twice by the Manila Social Welfare while tearfully roaming the streets of Quiapo in search of his mother.

This kid is lucky, well sort of, that he was abducted to Manila and not Tokyo. If this were in Japan the authorities would have turned him over to the closest japanese kin, like his mothers parents.

[Mulboyne]

Mainichi: Collapsed international marriages raise child abduction issue

Japanese women from collapsed international marriages are increasingly bringing their children to Japan without confirming custody rights, creating diplomatic problems between Japan and other countries, it has emerged. In one case three years ago, a Japanese woman's marriage to a Swedish man collapsed and she brought their child to Japan. Later when she traveled to the United States by herself she was detained, as police in Sweden had put her on an international wanted list through Interpol for child abduction. She was sent to Sweden and put on trial. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction bans people from taking their children to their home country after a collapsed marriage without confirming issues such as custody and visitation rights of the country in which they are living. The convention has about 80 signatory countries, mainly in Europe and North America, but Japan is not one of them.

Among cases known to foreign governments, there are about 50 cases between Japan and the U.S. in which foreign husbands are requesting custody of children brought to Japan by Japanese women, and about 30 such cases between Japan and Canada. Similar cases exist between Japan and countries such as Britain, Australia and Italy. In such cases, when foreign husbands file lawsuits in Japan seeking custody or visitation rights, their claims are rarely accepted, and the tough barriers put up by Japan in such cases have caused frustration.

In March this year, the Canadian Embassy in Japan held a symposium on the child abduction convention that was attended by Canadian and U.S. government officials. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper also commented on the issue when he came to Japan during the July G8 summit. Some diplomatic officials have criticized Japan, saying that Japan, while criticizing North Korea's abductions, it is carrying out abductions itself. Among the Japanese women who have come back to Japan with their children, there are apparently some who have fled due to violence from their husbands. In other cases they have apparently concluded that they would not be able to win court custody lawsuits because they don't know much about the other country and can't speak the language well. There are also many who don't realize that their actions constitute child abduction under the convention, and that they risk the same consequences as in the case in Sweden.

Japanese Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry figures show that the number of international marriages climbed from 27,700 in 2005 to 44,700 in 2006, about 1.6 times more. At the same time, divorces increased from 7,990 to 17,100 -- more than doubling. Considering that bringing children to Japan without confirming custody could constitute abduction, the Foreign Ministry has started to consider informing Japanese in international marriages through diplomatic establishments abroad.

This is an interesting article for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it shows the kind of spin the issue needs to have to get some traction in Japan. Even if politicians and bureaucrats accept the need to sign Hague, it still has to be sold to the public and it's a tough ask in any country to get people to accept that overseas court decisions should be respected. Certainly, there are Japanese fathers who lose children overseas but it is less common for fathers in Japan maintain contact with children from a broken marriage. Former Prime Minister Koizumi famously never met his youngest son after he separated from his wife. Any male FGs who have married a second time to a Japanese partner will be aware that their new wife is not always keen for her husband to see any children from his first marriage.

What the article does, then, is discuss the issue in terms of a Japanese wife who takes her children back to Japan "without confirming custody rights", as if the wife is unaware of any outstanding court judgements on custody arrangements. It even explains why this might be so: some have "fled due to violence" while others did not try to win custody because of language issues. Even if everyone knows that there are few, if any, people who fit that kind of description, the concept appears because the discussion needs to be framed in terms of Japanese victims as much as foreign victims.

The second point of interest is that the Canadian Premier apparently tied child abductions to abductions by North Korea. This is exactly what CRN Japan attempted to do. I don't believe the Mainichi raises the point to suggest that Japanese readers also equate the two situations; rather it's to show that Japan may not be able to maintain international sympathy for their complaints against North Korea if they don't address the growing number of child abduction complaints.

[Behan]

Good point, Mulboyne. It sounds like the J-government is more worried about the trouble that J-parents supposedly 'ignorant' of the law could get into than the rights of the children or the other parent:

Considering that bringing children to Japan without confirming custody could constitute abduction, the Foreign Ministry has started to consider informing Japanese in international marriages through diplomatic establishments abroad.

To me, that sounds like 'let's make sure no J-folk get jailed' rather than let's respect the children and the other parents and the other country's court decsions. But I am a cynical FG.

[Tsuru]

[...]

What happened to the kid?

[Behan]

I wonder if the mother was jailed, too?

[kurohinge1]

[SIZE="4"]Little hope for Japan's forsaken fathers[/SIZE]

FOUR years ago George Obiso's former wife took his two young sons on a six-week holiday to Japan and never came back.

Mr Obiso, 42, . . . had split from his Japanese wife the previous year after she became depressed and withdrawn.

"Her family moved out of their Yokohama home, disconnected the phone and disappeared somewhere into Japan, so I couldn't find them or even talk to my sons.

"It's been four years. I've missed a large part of their childhood and I'm starting to doubt I'll ever see them again. It's been a horrible, horrible nightmare."

Even if he found Anthony, now 12, and Jorge jnr, 8, Mr Obiso would be unlikely to get much sympathy from Japan's family law courts. For almost 30 years, Japan has resisted pressure from other Group of Seven nations to sign the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction]42[/B], left his daughter Kaya, now 5, with her maternal grandparents in Kyoto and made fortnightly visits from Hong Kong, where he was working, while he looked for a job in Tokyo.

"I promised my wife before she died I would make sure Kaya knew her Japanese cultural heritage and her grandparents, so I decided to honour that and live with her in Japan," he says. "Just as I was about to move to Tokyo, Akemi's parents hit me with a lawsuit alleging I had sexually assaulted my own daughter. The lawsuit was full of so many crazy, disgusting lies. Akemi's friends told me they blamed me for her death, and that's why they wanted to take Kaya away."

The court found the claims could not be substantiated by evidence, but ruled that custody should be given to the grandparents anyway . . . more

Ironic that they're both 42 - an unlucky age for men in Japan.

[Mike Oxlong]

[SIZE="4"]Little hope for Japan's forsaken fathers[/SIZE]



Ironic that they're both 42 - an unlucky age for men in Japan.

Maybe the irony is that they are both Western, Western business practices are responsible for widespread mental illness in Japan, not to mention the falling birthrate, and now some of those mentally ill Japanese are striking back at Westerners - the very same Westerners who help boost the birthrate...

[Ketou]

Japan signed the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1996. Has it made the relevant domestic laws for this yet?
So even if they sign the Hague convention on Child Abduction, when will there be changes in the domestic legal system??

[Greji]

It may be a bit of a twist from the directional view of this thread, but here is a US court ruling saying the J-courts should decide custody in a divorce case. I think as I read it, the ruling seems legally based and sound (for the US as the situs), however, I am quite sure that the judge in Upper Overshoe, Nebraska, or wherever it was, is not fully acquainted with the "lavish treatment" heaped upon fgs in such cases in lofty J-land.

Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2008
[SIZE="4"]Japan to settle custody case, U.S. court rules[/SIZE]

The Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled that the state's courts have no jurisdiction over a custody dispute involving a 6-year-old boy, leaving the issue to a Japanese court.

In the ruling issued Friday, the court said a Douglas County district judge had no authority to grant joint custody of the boy to his divorced parents, even though the boy was born in Nebraska and had lived there while in the U.S.....Rest here......

[wuchan]

According to court documents, Carter did not tell his wife, Nahoko Hata Carter, that he was going back to the U.S. or that he was taking the boy with him.

here is the problem. He abducted his kid. The US has signed the hague act and is obligated to return the child. He (the child) only lived in the US for ten weeks, technically it does make him a citizen but like the wife argued he is basically japanese. It doesn't help that the mom is dual.

Hata Carter holds U.S. and Japanese citizenship.

Isn't it illegal to hold Japanese citizenship and also have a passport from another country? Maybe he could screw her by sending a letter to the japanese immigration office forcing her to give one up.

[omae mona]

here is the problem. He abducted his kid. The US has signed the hague act and is obligated to return the child.

Right. If I recall, even the Hague Convention discusses the "habitual residence" of the child. No question it was Japan for this kid, and it looks like the judge agrees that Japan's the right legal venue for custody decisions.

So this is quite different than if the kid was living in the U.S. and was abducted to Japan. If Japan was a signatory to the Hague Convention and was following it, I think Japan would have to return the kid to the U.S. for legal proceedings.

Japan benefits from the U.S. participation in the Hague Convention when kids are kidnapped to the U.S., and they benefit from their own abstention from the Convention when kids are kidnapped to Japan. Either way they end up with the kids.

[Greji]

So this is quite different than if the kid was living in the U.S. and was abducted to Japan. If Japan was a signatory to the Hague Convention and was following it, I think Japan would have to return the kid to the U.S. for legal proceedings..

That's one of the reasons that I posted this one. If the shoe were on the other foot, would Japan rule the same way. One of the main complaints is that they can't even get the cases into the Japanese legal system in most incidents.

[Behan]

[Mulboyne]

A very different kind of case which nevertheless raises some similar issues:

Yomiuri: Wanted mom now living in Netherlands with daughter

An allegedly abusive woman placed on an international wanted list for removing her daughter from care in Omura, Nagasaki Prefecture, has been living in the Netherlands with her daughter with the approval of a Dutch court, it has been learned. The 9-year-old girl was placed at an institution to protect her from alleged abuse by her mother. The mother admitted taking her daughter, but told The Yomiuri Shimbun she had no choice but to take the girl because they had been separated on the basis of a sloppy investigation into the allegations. They reportedly are living somewhere in the center of the country. The Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry's office of child abuse prevention said it was unaware of any previous cases where a child placed in protective care had been taken out of Japan by the parents. "We haven't heard of a case like this, and we're not sure how to proceed," a ministry official said. The mother, 32, was put on an international wanted list by the Nagasaki prefectural police on suspicion of taking the girl out of the country. She currently works for an information technology firm in the Netherlands, according to the mother and other sources. She allegedly took the daughter from near where she was staying on Oct. 24 last year, and two days later entered the Netherlands, where she had worked previously, with the daughter, the sources said.

The girl was taken into protective custody by Dutch police following a request by Japanese authorities. A hearing was held to investigate whether the mother had abused the daughter, among other issues, on Oct. 30 at a Dutch court, but the court ruled there was no sign of abusive treatment, according to a written decision. On Dec. 29, the court gave the mother permission to live in the Netherlands with her daughter, according to the mother and the sources. "They [the Japanese authorities] said I had abused my daughter in Japan. But I was just disciplining her," the mother said to The Yomiuri Shimbun. "The investigation into the case was inadequate and the court didn't hear my appeal. So I had no choice but to take my daughter away." The mother added that she was not planning to return to Japan. As no extradition treaty exists between Japan and the Netherlands, the Nagasaki prefectural police said they cannot do anything else at present. The Nagasaki prefectural center for children, women and the disabled said the mother had engaged in a criminal act.

[Greji]

A very different kind of case which nevertheless raises some similar issues:

Yomiuri: Wanted mom now living in Netherlands with daughter

Extradition only exists between Japan and a handful of countries. I could see this case being a precedent for Japan not moving on the same type of case coming into Japan from overseas...

[Adhesive]

[Behan]

My J-wife received a very interesting E-mail from the Japanese Embassy today, explaining that removing a child from the US/Canada without the other parent's consent is illegal, and that Japan is now a signatory of the Hague Convention, etc. It's nice to see that they are taking steps to clarify the issue with Japanese citizens living abroad:

As a parent with a J-wife, thanks for posting that, Adhesive.

The embassy's email seems not to be so much concerned for the welfare of the child or the FG other parent, but to avoid the J parent from getting arrested and/or jailed.
I'm glad they are telling their nationals this, but their motivation seems more to to keep their own out of trouble rather than to prevent them from doing something bad.

[omae mona]

My J-wife received a very interesting E-mail from the Japanese Embassy today, explaining that removing a child from the US/Canada without the other parent's consent is illegal, and that Japan is now a signatory of the Hague Convention, etc. It's nice to see that they are taking steps to clarify the issue with Japanese citizens living abroad:

Thanks for that post - it's interesting. Just to clarify, though, I think it says Japan is considering becoming a signatory (they haven't signed yet).

The embassy's email seems not to be so much concerned for the welfare of the child or the FG other parent, but to avoid the J parent from getting arrested and/or jailed.
I'm glad they are telling their nationals this, but their motivation seems more to to keep their own out of trouble rather than to prevent them from doing something bad.

I think they're probably being rational about what will persuade these would-be kidnappers to think twice. I'm pretty sure the Japanese parent firmly believes the kidnapping is in the child's best interest. An email from the embassy isn't going to change their mind about that. I have to agree that the best way to effect change is to scare the willies out of them (e.g. mentioning potential 10 year+ jail terms).

[Greji]

[Adhesive]

Just to clarify, though, I think it says Japan is considering becoming a signatory (they haven't signed yet).

Oops, thanks for that...pretty big difference.