State Department Confirms Discussion With DPJ On Hague Treaty

[Mulboyne]

Kurt M. Campbell is the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs at the State Department. At the Senate confirmation hearings, he was specifically asked by one committee member to address the issue of child abductions if he was appointed. Campbell accepted the request and acknowledged that the hearings were being attended by parents with those concerns. Today in Tokyo, Campbell gave a press conference where he spoke about the the relationship between the United States and Japan. It's worth reading the whole transcript since he covered a number of important topics related to dealing with the new government but he was also asked about the abduction question by Charlie Reed of Stars and Stripes:

REED: One more question, too. Is the Hague Treaty part of the talks that are going to happen – the Hague treaty on international child abduction?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: Yes, and we had deliberations about those today. Yes, we did.

REED: Can you give me any indication of the progress? The new government has said that it seems to be an issue that they would support and that treaty seems like something that would move forward with it. Is that what you are hearing as well?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY CAMPBELL: I would say we were pleased with the initial discussions we had today.

[gkanai]

It seems like there are many other important things for the US-Japan discussion, but actually I think Japan signing Hague is really important- especially with the growing number of international marriages.

I'm glad to hear that the US is prioritizing this discussion of Japan signing Hague.

[Western All Stars]

I wonder what arguments there are for not signing it.

[xenomorph42]

I wonder what arguments there are for not signing it.

I'm not holding my breath! I'll believe it when I see it! Even if they did sign it doesn't mean that they would implement it immediately.

When you think about it. This would create chaos in the court system in Japan, think about it. They courts would be bogged down with parental custody issues. Finally, women would have to prove that the husband poses a serious threat or is a bad influence around the child or physically, verbally abusive. Now it's easy for women to give you the finger and just take the child at whim and every court in the land will side with her, because you are the dirty Gaijin.
This would drag on and on. Right now, the way the system is structured, the woman can just take the child give any bogus story go to court get sole custody and that's it! Most Japanese can't conceptualize the meaning of "Joint Custody"So I do hope for change in that area(Where I have I heard that saying that before)God knows it drastically needs it!

[Mulboyne]

I wonder what arguments there are for not signing it.

The main argument is that it's not the law's business in Japan to make rulings in family disputes.

[omae mona]

I think there may be some confusion about what the Hague Treaty is about. Or maybe the confusion is mine. I do not believe this has anything to do with setting rules about what Japanese courts must do in custody cases. It says that if a kidnapping took place, the child must be returned to the country where he or she was normally living, and the court in THAT country will make the decision.

In other words, if a Japanese parent wants to rely on the Japanese judicial system (which will be favorable to the Japanese parent), they better keep their family in Japan. If they go overseas, they will be subject to the other country's laws and judicial system. The treaty aims to stop the practice of changing jurisdiction via kidnapping.

When you think about it. This would create chaos in the court system in Japan, think about it. They courts would be bogged down with parental custody issues. Finally, women would have to prove that the husband poses a serious threat or is a bad influence around the child or physically, verbally abusive.

Heavens, no. I don't think that is at all right. The idea of the Hague Treaty is that the only thing you need to prove is that the child was kidnapped. It does not matter who is the good or bad parent. The child will be returned to the country of origin, and the courts there will decide what to do. If anything this will take cases OUT of the courts system in Japan.

[Mulboyne]

[Behan]

Call me cynical but I think the government here would be interested in signing the Hague Convention as a way of getting Japanese children back to Japan and not as a way for children in Japan to be taken back to the countries of one of their parents.

[Mike Oxlong]

Call me cynical but I think the government here would be interested in signing the Hague Convention as a way of getting Japanese children back to Japan and not as a way for children in Japan to be taken back to the countries of one of their parents.

Are you saying the Japanese government is interested in the benefits, but none of the responsibilities that come with the treaty?;)

[wuchan]

[quote="Mike Oxlong"]Are you saying the Japanese government is interested in the benefits, but none of the responsibilities that come with the treaty?]

[xenomorph42]

[Mulboyne]

Yomiuri: Govt unlikely to sign child custody pact for 2 years

The government will need at least two more years before it will sign an international treaty designed to settle child custodial disputes arising from failed international marriages, according to government sources. In the wake of an increasing number of such cases, the government intends to speed efforts to sign the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. However, relevant legislative measures are unlikely to be submitted to the Diet until 2011 at the earliest, according to the sources. The treaty stipulates that if a parent takes a child to his or her home country without the other parent's consent after their international marriage has failed, the dispute needs to be settled after the child has been returned to his or her habitual country of residence. The treaty aims to preserve the child custody arrangement that existed before an alleged wrongful removal. The treaty has been ratified by 81 nations, including the United States and European countries.

Among the Group of Seven industrialized countries, only Japan has yet to sign the convention, which has resulted in conflict with parties in the treaty's signatory countries. Child custody problems arising from failed international marriages are dealt with under domestic laws in Japan. In September, police arrested an American man on suspicion of abducting minors after he took his children from his former Japanese wife in Fukuoka Prefecture. In this case, however, the former wife had taken the children from the United States without the man's consent. Therefore, the case stirred protests in the United States as the former wife was seen at fault in the country. Japan has been cautious about joining the treaty due to concerns that many Japanese women brought their children back home due to domestic violence by their former husbands, the sources said.

But there is growing momentum for the country to join the treaty. Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada has expressed his intention to speed up an examination of the pros and cons of joining the treaty. There also is mounting international pressure on Japan to sign the treaty. On Friday, ambassadors and ministers from eight countries, including U.S. Ambassador to Japan John Roos, asked Justice Minister Keiko Chiba to sign the treaty at an early date. But it likely will take some time until the country is able to facilitate such a move by addressing the necessary domestic laws. Under the convention, signatory countries are obliged to help locate a child who has been taken away and return the child to the country where he or she originally lived.

[Greji]

Yomiuri: Govt unlikely to sign child custody pact for 2 years

I especially like the reference to it will take time to discuss the pros and cons of the issue. I mean, like the Treaty just came into effect, right? It is quite unfortunate that the J-government was not able to lean about it's existance before now..