Russell wrote:
After she tried to call members of her husband's family, she says she received the following email from her husband: "Please do not contact any family members as they are not involved. You can contact me through this email. I have been to family court today."
Kaori adds: "I have been advised by police in Japan that they cannot do anything as my son was taken by his father. Also, a lawyer said that because Japan has not signed the Hague Convention, I cannot do anything from Japan.
[...]
The most straightforward option would be to go to New Zealand, hire a local attorney to get a court order within New Zealand, get the child back locally and then bring the child back to Japan.
In this case, it is possible that the father took the mother and the child to Japan intentionally, in order to avoid the application of the convention, which both Britain and New Zealand have ratified. However, Kaori may also be able to file a case based on the convention from either of those countries. Since the child had only been in Japan a few days when he was taken to New Zealand, she may be able to insist that the country of residence of the child is still the U.K., not Japan.
In conclusion, she needs to take action in Britain or New Zealand, and not much can be done from within Japan. It is expected that Japan will ratify the convention in the near future, but it is not retroactive so it will not change Kaori's situation.
Judging by the level of planning, I think the guy might have also squarely handled the legal side of the problem...
It's like hunting moskitoes with a bazooka. But a plan so carefully smartly and -sort of- humanly planned (ok, she got no job, but she is back in her own country) deserve immense praise. The day I go back to freelance intel business I want to have this guy on my team...