Hot Topics | |
---|---|
(1VB)freels wrote:Ohhhh how the tables have turned.......
omae mona wrote:I doubt the tables have turned at all. If he returns to his country, which is a signatory to the Hague convention, his government is obliged to return the child to Japan. Unless he is in hiding, he will not get to keep the kid.
Screwed-down Hairdo wrote:I'm not sure whether that would actually be the case. I used to work with a woman whose kid was taken from her by her first Japanese husband and she could do nothing about it. When her second marriage crumbled in Japan, she snatched her kid and scrambled back to her native country (a Hague signatory) and, as far as I know, stayed there with impunity.
I'm by no means an expert, though.
I still argue the more fundamental problem is the lack of shared custody under Japanese law. Until that is solved, there will not be a solution regarding the Hague convention.
omae mona wrote:I am sure no expert either. I wonder if your acquaintance's second husband (or the Japanese government) actually took the steps of filing an official grievance under Hague. If they did and the foreign country still didn't respond, that seems kind of strange. But maybe the Hague convention doesn't really have any effect. I have no idea.
FG Lurker wrote: It seems rather unfair that a country that hasn't signed the convention (Japan) should be able to make use of it. Actually, it would be really fucked if Japan could make use of the convention without signing it -- there would be no benefit to Japan to signing if this is the case.
Christoff wrote:it is very unlikely that either government will engage in much diplomatic pressure over a domestic dispute. it seems highly unlikely that either government will remove their respective representatives over a trivial dispute when there are greater economic concerns at work
Screwed-down Hairdo wrote:You would assume so, but Japanese governments have traditionally acted in the interests of their citizens, especially in situations where the perception is that the Japanese citizen has been wronged.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the Japanese government act to the extent that it will be able to "Czechmate" the foreign man involved. Let's not forget the Japanese tend to have one set of rules for themselves and another set for gaijin.
In the meantime, the tug-of-war is going to fry the brain of the poor little boy caught in the middle.
Catoneinutica wrote:Okay, we got a "Czechmate," but no "bouncing Czech" yet? C'mon guys!
Screwed-down Hairdo wrote:Hang on a second....I'm just Czeching out my bad pun dictionary to see if I can find anything more to use.
Screwed-down Hairdo wrote:Unfortunately, I don't know the details. But I get the feeling you might be right and that signatories would be obliged to act.
Which probably helps to explain why Japan hasn't signed.
What alarms me about the Hague is that many Japanese lawyers regarded (locally) as human rights crusaders are opposed to the country signing it.
Kanchou wrote:It figures that an Eastern European dude would succeed (for the time being) where an American failed miserably...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests