Foreign Ministry Sets Up Hague Convention Workgroup

[Mulboyne]

[Mulboyne]

Asahi: Japan edges closer to signing Hague Convention

Criticism of Japan over its handling of international child abduction disputes has prompted the Foreign Ministry to look closely at signing a convention designed to protect children caught in the middle. The Hague Convention on international child abduction stipulates that if a parent from a broken international marriage takes a child out of his or her country of residence without the other's consent, the child must be returned to that country. The ministry established a task force on child custody last month and will shortly hold talks about the issue with the United States--the country with which Japan has the most disputes on this issue. Critics in some countries say Japan has become a haven for "child abductors," usually Japanese women who bring their children to this country and deny their spouses further custodial access. In a high-profile case, an American father was arrested in Fukuoka Prefecture last September for trying to snatch back his two children, whom his Japanese ex-wife had brought to Japan without his consent. His arrest drew criticism from within the United States, a signatory to the Hague Convention.

As international marriages and divorces have increased, so, too, has the number of child abduction disputes. Eighty-one countries are signatories to the 1980 convention. Japan is the only Group of Seven member that is not. Signatory nations have urged Japan to join to resolve those disputes, and the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended in 2004 that Japan ratify it. Soon after he assumed the office in September, Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada made clear his intention to study Japan's participation "in a positive manner." The Division for Issues Related to Child Custody, the task force of nine officials who specialize in treaty and regional matters, addresses specific disputes while studying whether Japan should sign it.

Also in December, the ministry held the first meeting of the Japan-France consultative committee in Tokyo. The French delegation presented a list of 35 disputes, including eight "serious" cases. In one case, a Japanese woman who brought her offspring to Japan refuses contact with her French ex-husband. Japanese officials have promised to extend liaison and other help, officials said. According to the division, the United States had informed Japan of 73 "child abduction" cases, Canada 36 and Britain 33 as of last October. There are hurdles to clear, however, before Japan can sign the convention. Specifically, officials want to ensure there will be protection for mothers and children who flee abusive ex-husbands. "Victims of domestic violence have concerns," said Justice Minister Keiko Chiba.

[Mulboyne]

AP: Japan urged to resolve child custody disputes

Ambassadors from the U.S. and seven other countries on Saturday urged Tokyo to resolve legal custody issues that keep foreign parents from visiting their children in Japan. Under Japanese law, a single parent gains full custody of children in divorce cases, and it is usually the mother. This leaves many fathers cut off from their children until they are grown. In addition, Japan has not signed on to a global treaty on child abduction. So when international marriages go sour, Japanese mothers can bring their children home and refuse any contact with foreign ex-husbands, regardless of custody rulings in other countries. The long-standing issue gained increased attention last year, when American Christopher Savoie was arrested in Japan after his Japanese ex-wife accused him of taking their two children as they went to school. Amid accusations of kidnapping from both sides, Savoie was eventually released and allowed to leave the country, on condition he leave his children behind.

On Saturday, U.S. Ambassador John Roos, together with ambassadors and envoys from Australia, France, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada and Spain met with Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada to discuss the issue. They emphasized the welfare of children involved in such disputes, saying they should have access to both parents, said a joint statement issued after the meeting. The ambassadors urged Japan to sign the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, which all eight countries have done. "We also urged Japan to identify and implement interim measures to enable parents who are separated from their children to maintain contact with them and ensure visitation rights, and to establish a framework for resolution of current child abduction cases," the statement said.

Japan's foreign ministry issued a statement saying Okada explained that Tokyo recognized the importance of the issue and was working toward a resolution. Tokyo has argued in the past that signing the convention could endanger Japanese women and their children who have fled from abusive foreign husbands.

[omae mona]

I still think they are going about this in a totally idiotic way. Instead of just asking Japan to sign Hague, they are asking Japan to go *far* beyond that and change their approach to joint custody. Hague itself has absolutely nothing to do with "ensuring visitation rights", and by tacking this on, the U.S. is making it MUCH more likely that Japan will not sign.

Hague should be easy for Japan to implement. All it requires is returning kidnapped children to the originating country so the courts there will decide what to do.

But getting Japan to change its family law entirely and convert to the American way of thinking about joint custody, as much as I would approve, is a much bigger issue than signing Hague. This involves families without a kidnapping involved, which I assume is 99% of divorce cases, and it probably means changing the rules for all domestic marriages too. I can't see a case where they set up 1 set of laws for "kokusai kekkon" and another set of rules for Japanese.

I wish they would do this one step at a time instead of one "big bang". I fear they are just going to get nowhere.

[Mulboyne]

Here's a recent Yomiuri report:

Japan--where some parents never see their kids

In Japan, a couple gets divorced every two minutes. There is also a growing number of conflicts resulting from breakups of couples from different countries. This is the third and final installment in a series looking at some of the problems divorced parents face as they struggle to reunite with their children. A new dispute has erupted over parent-child relations as murmurs spread in Western nations that Japan does not allow parents to see their children if they live apart from them after separation or divorce.

The primary school-age son of a 46-year-old company employee from the Tokai region has not returned to Japan since the boy went to see his father in the United States 1-1/2 years ago. The woman, who asked not to be identified, began living separately from her husband five years ago. Based on an agreement signed by both of them, their son travels between the two countries every six months to visit each parent. In summer 2008, however, her son did not come back to Japan after six months, and she was unable to contact him or her husband.

She hired a lawyer in the United States and tried to contact her husband to get her son to return to Japan. Negotiations with her husband began recently, but he has strongly rejected any possibility of their son returning to Japan, saying that his son might never return to the United States since Japan is not a signatory of The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The convention stipulates that a child brought from one country to another by either parent without the consent of his or her spouse or former spouse is to be returned to the country of origin. "I don't understand why my husband is doing this. He suddenly started keeping our son at his place. I've faithfully kept the visitation promises," the woman said. Her husband recently sent her a photograph of their son, who has grown since she last saw him. "I was surprised to see the picture. I was like, 'Is this my son?' I realized how long it had been since I'd been with him," she said.

Lawyer Mikiko Otani, an expert on divorces between international couples, said signatory countries of The Hague Convention, such as the United States and European nations, are growing critical of Japan. Otani said there were several cases similar to the woman's, in which parents living outside Japan refused to have their children set foot in Japan because it had not signed the convention. Otani said there were even cases in which a Japanese national could not sit down at the negotiating table with those from signatory countries "because it's thought there's no reason to discuss the matter with anyone from a country that refuses to allow parents to see their children." "Japanese parents may be at a disadvantage if things are left this way," Otani said.

In one case, a Japanese woman asked her U.S. husband during their divorce suit while both of them were living in the United States to let her and their daughter go to Japan temporarily to see the woman's ailing father. After the husband refused and the lawsuit became prolonged, she took their daughter to Japan without the consent of her husband. "He'd have allowed us to come to Japan if Japan had signed The Hague Convention. I also would have told him I was going back to Japan," she said.

This issue has been raised mainly by foreign nationals whose children have been brought to Japan by their Japanese spouses or former spouses and cannot get their children back. They say Japan not being a convention signatory poses a problem. The United States and European nations have urged Japan to sign the convention by making the issue a diplomatic one. Moves to have Japan sign the convention began accelerating in the country as the number of cases grows in which the Japanese side has been put in a disadvantage.

In response, the Foreign Ministry late last year set up an office to deal with parental rights issues with the aim of handling international child abductions. Since there also are cases in which children are brought to Japan for the purpose of saving them from child abuse, there are opinions that Japan should carefully examine the convention before signing it. In 2008, there were about 37,000 international marriages in Japan, while about 19,000 international couples divorced, marking a nearly twofold increase from 10 years ago. Efforts of those involved are expected to continue to ensure better post-divorce parent-child relations as the march toward internationalization brings people with different systems and different values together.

It was always on the cards that any move by Japan to sign Hague would have to be accompanied by media coverage showing how individual Japanese have been left in distress because Japan is not a signatory. To that extent, it's a useful development. This article is a little disingenuous, however. Otani's point about Japanese not being able to "sit down at the negotiating table" is not the same as those same parents being denied legal recourse if a foreign parent has refused to return a child to Japan. It can be a long and expensive process but overseas courts have found in favour of Japanese parents.

[Adhesive]

Here's a recent Yomiuri report:

Japan--where some parents never see their kids

It was always on the cards that any move by Japan to sign Hague would have to be accompanied by media coverage showing how individual Japanese have been left in distress because Japan is not a signatory. To that extent, it's a useful development.

The case definitely needs to be better made that signing onto to the convention is in Japan's best interest. I think the best way to do this is to point out that if Japanese women knew that they might be prevented from returning to Japan with their children, if they choose to reside and breed overseas, they would be discouraged from taking the plunge...thus ensuring Japanese purity and fertility at home.

This article is a little disingenuous, however. Otani's point about Japanese not being able to "sit down at the negotiating table" is not the same as those same parents being denied legal recourse if a foreign parent has refused to return a child to Japan. It can be a long and expensive process but overseas courts have found in favour of Japanese parents.

Yeah, it's also funny how domestic violence only seems to be a concern in foreign marriages. Not to mention that if the J-spouse was truly being abused she would have adequate recourse in any one of the signatory countries.

[Mulboyne]

Yomiuri: Japan stance on child custody treaty causing friction with U.S.

Japan's reluctance to sign up to an international treaty that prevents one parent in a failed international marriage from taking a child of the couple across national borders without the prior consent of the other parent is causing friction between Tokyo and Washington. At a meeting held earlier this month with senior officials of the Foreign Ministry, Kurt Campbell, U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, told Japan that some members of the U.S. Congress have said it will be difficult for the United States to support Japan over the issue of Japanese nationals being abducted to North Korea if Japan does not make moves toward joining the treaty.

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is a multilateral treaty that aims to ensure the prompt return of any child who has been illegally taken from one member country to another. The convention states that when a divorced couple with different nationalities fights over the custody of a child, the child must be returned to his or her habitual residence. Eighty-one countries, including the United States, have ratified the treaty. Recently, cases in which Japanese in failed international marriages have taken their children to Japan without prior consent from their spouse have received widespread media attention in the United States. There is no legal framework that allows non-Japanese parents the right to see their children after a Japanese spouse has taken a child to Japan.

At a press conference held on Feb. 2, Campbell expressed concern that the issue could damage Japan-U.S. relations. However, Japan would have to prepare domestic laws on procedures to return children to their habitual residence before signing up to the convention, and some people are opposed to such a move. "Concerns over the treaty have been voiced by women who were subjected to violence by their spouse," Justice Minister Keiko Chiba said. On Wednesday, the Justice Ministry held a meeting to explain how the ministry is working to address the problem. As yet, however, there are no concrete moves within the government to join the convention.

[Mulboyne]

[omae mona]

[Mulboyne]

A commenter on Debito's site has pointed out that MOFA is now soliciting public comment on the Hague treaty.

[Mulboyne]

[Mike Oxlong]

[Adhesive]

[Yokohammer]