Child Abduction Issue Explodes

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

It's possible, but the core issue remains the absence of joint custody under Japan's Family Law. Until that issue is solved -- and as far as I know discussion of reform has not even been tabled -- I'd bet my bottom dollar Japan will not sign the Hague Convention. They are not going to do it simply because a handful of gaijin are moaning about it. I think any moves to sign the treaty are little more than posturing for a foreign audience.

[Mulboyne]

It's possible, but the core issue remains the absence of joint custody under Japan's Family Law.

Not really. Hague is not intended to decide local issues of family law. Some of the discussion on the web seems to miss this point. If you want visitation rights enforced, for example, then you can't appeal to Hague. The treaty is specifically about child abduction.

In the clearest case, when a parent violates a court order by removing a child to another country, Hague is the treaty you can appeal to to have the child returned. Hague expressly says a child should be returned to a state, not to a parent (although, in practice, the other parent usually takes over care) so it is not saying anything about the correctness, or the justice, of the local ruling the first parent violated. A court hearing a Hague case isn't deciding who gets custody or how custody should be split, it's deciding which state should make those decisions.

As I mentioned above with Switzerland, not all courts in Hague signatory countries appear to understand or recognize that distinction.

Violating a specific court order is an easy example to address but most abductions take place before any binding arbitration has been agreed. However, Hague still applies in these cases and, in the same way, no Japanese court would have to address whether joint custody was right or just.

The issue for Japanese family law is separate. If Japan did sign and enforce Hague, then it would be in a strange position. As it stands, if a Japanese parent removes the kids from Tokyo to Osaka and cuts off contact with the other parent, courts don't really get involved. If they do give a ruling, the police don't seem to enforce it. Consequently, the state would look like it was doing more for an abandoned foreign parent overseas than an abandoned Japanese parent in Japan.

That asymmetry might well throw up calls for a reform of family law but that's not what Hague demands or requires.

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

Mulboyne,
Fair point and well argued...I can see clearly we're you're coming from. But you've also summed up what I see as the crux of the problem...Signing the Hague convention means Japan would be obliged to act in a case involving foreigners -- most likely in opposition to a Japanese -- in circumstances they tolerate domestically. I'm pretty sure that nobody in Kasumigaseki is gonna let this happen regardless of what anybody in the Dead Pan Joke may have said.
I fully support signing the convention, but what's morally correct and what the ruling elite consider to be in the best interests of a particular nation aren't always a match. I don't like Japan's stance, but I understand why it's taken it. And changing things here is a Herculean task at the best of times...change that involves tapping into a system many consider to be the core of a "unique" society borders on the unimaginable. If you need proof of my argument, see how much coverage this issue has been given in the Japanese media, and I'll bet my bottom dollar anything written up is not going to advocating a proactive stance.

[Mulboyne]

...Signing the Hague convention means Japan would be obliged to act in a case involving foreigners -- most likely in opposition to a Japanese -- in circumstances they tolerate domestically. I'm pretty sure that nobody in Kasumigaseki is gonna let this happen regardless of what anybody in the Dead Pan Joke may have said.

I've read and heard a few comments from people who don't care for the way parents of children abducted to Japan compare their position with parents of children abducted by North Korea. I'll lay good money that, in the event Japan did act to return a child under Hague, it will be the Japanese parent or supporters who start to accuse the government of acting like the Norks. You might end up with something resembling the circus surrounding [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elian_Gonzalez_affair]Eliá].

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

I've read and heard a few comments from people who don't care for the way parents of children abducted to Japan compare their position with parents of children abducted by North Korea. I'll lay good money that, in the event Japan did act to return a child under Hague, it will be the Japanese parent or supporters who start to accuse the government of acting like the Norks. You might end up with something resembling the circus surrounding [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elian_Gonzalez_affair]Eliá].

Terrible situation, but great photo ops!!!

[Samurai_Jerk]

I don't think joint custody is the issue even for domestic cases of child abduction involving two Japanese parents. Granting joint custody wouldn't change the fact that no one seems willing to enforce custody or visitation rights in Japan. They don't need to have joint custody as long as those two things are enforced.

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

I don't think joint custody is the issue even for domestic cases of child abduction involving two Japanese parents. Granting joint custody wouldn't change the fact that no one seems willing to enforce custody or visitation rights in Japan. They don't need to have joint custody as long as those two things are enforced.

True...but there's nothing legally binding about custody or visitation rights, so it boils down to what I've continued arguing.
The Family Law as it exists is that one parent gains parental rights: and that's it. Anything that happens after that point is a private agreement between two parties (even if mediated by the Family Court) and authorities here have traditionally shunned intervention in private matters. There's no such thing as contempt of court under Japanese law, so people can ignore such agreements with impunity. Parents not awarded custody are entirely dependent on the goodwill of the parent with custody if they want to see their kids.
And I argue that this is a much more pressing matter for most Japanese than signing the Hague convention, which is why bureaucrats will be so steadfast in ensuring Japan doesn't get with the international program. They will discuss it endlessly for years, pretend they will sign soon and then keep putting it off for as long as possible.

[Samurai_Jerk]

True...but there's nothing legally binding about custody or visitation rights, so it boils down to what I've continued arguing.
The Family Law as it exists is that one parent gains parental rights: and that's it. Anything that happens after that point is a private agreement between two parties (even if mediated by the Family Court) and authorities here have traditionally shunned intervention in private matters. There's no such thing as contempt of court under Japanese law, so people can ignore such agreements with impunity. Parents not awarded custody are entirely dependent on the goodwill of the parent with custody if they want to see their kids.
And I argue that this is a much more pressing matter for most Japanese than signing the Hague convention, which is why bureaucrats will be so steadfast in ensuring Japan doesn't get with the international program. They will discuss it endlessly for years, pretend they will sign soon and then keep putting it off for as long as possible.

There are three things I've learned from these cases:

1. Don't get married.

2. Don't have kids.

3. Japan can go fuck itself.

[maraboutslim]

I don't know, man. There is something attractive about a government that doesn't wish to get involved so deeply in family matters. Now, in case of a criminally dangerous parent, perhaps a government should intervene to protect the child. But baring that, the families ought to be able to handle things without a government intervening.

If one doesn't like that approach, he's free to not procreate with a Japanese spouse. But to go ahead and have kids and then fail at your relationship and then complain that the law in Japan doesn't help you when you fail to maintain that relationship and/or access to your kids, is a little much if you ask me.

[Samurai_Jerk]

I don't know, man. There is something attractive about a government that doesn't wish to get involved so deeply in family matters. Now, in case of a criminally dangerous parent, perhaps a government should intervene to protect the child. But baring that, the families ought to be able to handle things without a government intervening.

That sounds good in theory but in reality it doesn't work. If one parent refuses to allow the other access to their children for no reason other than spite, what recourse does that parent have?

[Doctor Stop]

If one parent refuses to allow the other access to their children for no reason other than spite, what recourse does that parent have?

Call in The A-Team?

[Ganma]

Call in The A-Team?

You damn right!

[maraboutslim]

That sounds good in theory but in reality it doesn't work. If one parent refuses to allow the other access to their children for no reason other than spite, what recourse does that parent have?

Uh...treat your woman in such a way that they don't grow to hate you so much that they want to keep the kids away from you for spite? You can't expect to get to be a total asshole to the mother and still get to be with the kids. You have to hold it all together or at least maintain civility.

[Mulboyne]

Uh...treat your woman in such a way that they don't grow to hate you so much that they want to keep the kids away from you for spite?

It's not a question of spite. Some Japanese parents - not just wives - think it normal for the kids to go with one parent. Often, they'll even split the kids as happened with former Prime Minister Koizumi. He's never even met the one son his wife was pregnant with when they divorced and that's by his choice. He took the other kids and hasn't let his former wife see them.

Some here will know foreign friends who married a second time to a Japanese wife and found that their new partner sometimes feels threatened by the way their husband wants to maintain contact with his kids from the first relationship.

Some of these ways of thinking carry over from Japan's history of inheritance disputes. Parents wanted to establish a pecking order for any children, a matter complicated by the fact that children born with mistresses were common, especially in better-off families.

You often see parents who have been excluded from their children's lives being blamed for failing to maintain a good relationship with their former partner. That may be a factor in some cases but it ignores the fact that, more often that not, the conflict has arisen precisely because one believes the children need to see both parents while the other believes its necessary to break all contact. No amount of goodwill is going to close that gap and it's disingenuous to believe that one side or the other must be at fault for bringing about such a state of affairs.

This isn't just an issue for international couples. Attitudes frequently differ among Japanese couples. Usually its the partner from the richer or well-connected family who ends up calling the shots and there's nothing the other can usually do about it. It's not the case that families work things out consensually in the absence of government intervention. The lack of legal arbitration in Japan just means the law of the jungle prevails. Koizumi's wife wanted to see her other children but her ex-husband didn't allow it.

[IparryU]

You often see parents who have been excluded from their children's lives being blamed for failing to maintain a good relationship with their former partner. That may be a factor in some cases but it ignores the fact that, more often that not, the conflict has arisen precisely because one believes the children need to see both parents while the other believes its necessary to break all contact. No amount of goodwill is going to close that gap and it's disingenuous to believe that one side or the other must be at fault for bringing about such a state of affairs.

This isn't just an issue for international couples. Attitudes frequently differ among Japanese couples. Usually its the partner from the richer or well-connected family who ends up calling the shots and there's nothing the other can usually do about it. It's not the case that families work things out consensually in the absence of government intervention. The lack of legal arbitration in Japan just means the law of the jungle prevails. Koizumi's wife wanted to see her other children but her ex-husband didn't allow it.

well said Mulboyne

[Samurai_Jerk]

Uh...treat your woman in such a way that they don't grow to hate you so much that they want to keep the kids away from you for spite? You can't expect to get to be a total asshole to the mother and still get to be with the kids. You have to hold it all together or at least maintain civility.

Wow, who knew it was that simple?

[Cyka UchuuJin]

Wow, who knew it was that simple?

yeah, start taking notes. i want a kid now an am going to harrass you endlessly to perform your husbandly duties.

[Greji]

yeah, start taking notes. i want a kid now an am going to harrass you endlessly to perform your husbandly duties.

I'll help you with that provided your the one measuring with the dollar bill in your avatar. If you're the guy getting measured, we'll just have to give it a try and see how it works out......

[Yokohammer]

I'll help you with that provided your the one measuring with the dollar bill in your avatar.

That's a dollar bill? I thought it was a very small girl measuring the guy with a postage stamp!

[Samurai_Jerk]

yeah, start taking notes. i want a kid now an am going to harrass you endlessly to perform your husbandly duties.

That's really not cool using a picture from our honeymoon for your avatar.

[Cyka UchuuJin]

That's really not cool using a picture from our honeymoon for your avatar.

but i told you already, if you didn't clip that nose hair i'd do it.

[Mulboyne]

Amy Savoie has written a piece in the Japan Times.

Her basic concern is well-founded but her tone is very arch. I'd take issue with this claim:

The government tries to convey that it is justifiable for Japanese parents to "take kids home to Japan" (tsure-kaeri or tsurete-kikoku), but when a foreign parent takes the children to another country (that parent's home country), the Japanese call it kidnapping (tsure-sari) or abduction (rachi). The Japanese government and media behave duplicitously every time they pretend these unilateral relocations (relocating without permission from the other parent) are not the same thing.

The Japanese media don't really cover parental abduction stories. Certainly not enough to draw any general conclusions about how they represent them. Savoie's case was the first given any proper attention in the last twenty years.

[Bucky]

[yt]_R_b6Jh_76c[/yt]

[Bucky]

Suit against Williamson judge over abduction to Japan is dismissed

[Bucky]

More coverage of the issue in general

ABC News spoke with more than two dozen fathers whose American children were abducted by their mothers, and now live somewhere in Japan. A common thread among some was the request for large sums of money in exchange for even just a Web chat with the child.

The fathers by and large, have refused to pay.

In Sawyer's case, his ex-wife sent him an e-mail one day after she spirited Wayne away from their Los Angeles home, demanding $3,000 if he wanted to see his son via Web video.

Sawyer called it extortion. His ex-wife called it an attempt at getting child support.
"If Scott wants to see him [Wayne] on the website, I say 'It's okay every time, every day,'" she said. "It's okay. But pay child support. Just a responsibility as a father."

[wuchan]

More coverage of the issue in general

If she want's child support she should go to a country that has a system that requires the other parent to pay...

[Greji]

If she want's child support she should go to a country that has a system that requires the other parent to pay...

Yeah, he should tell her he'll pay what she demands. All she has to do is just pop over and pick it up....

[matsuki]

Without reading every post in this thread, I must ask the naive question that if the Japanese ex wife in this situation is a fugitive in the US, why hasn't she been sent back to the US to face the music? Last I checked, the US has an extradition treaty with Japan...

[wuchan]

Without reading every post in this thread, I must ask the naive question that if the Japanese ex wife in this situation is a fugitive in the US, why hasn't she been sent back to the US to face the music? Last I checked, the US has an extradition treaty with Japan...

The problem is if Japan doesn't think it's a crime the J-police and courts refuse to get involved. There are many cases that have shown the j-system's thinking when it comes to applying law: in Japan the law protects citizens, Japanese citizens ONLY. They also seem to think that the child would be better off here rather than a barbarian country.

A little while back there was a story of a guy here who's wife claimed that he abused her and took the kids into a protection program in tokyo. This happened after the father filed for divorce because the mother was nuts. The program provided housing in a secret location, gave the wife and kids new names, hid them away for a few months, and enrolled one of the kids in a new school. Mom was abusive and reportedly struck the children. The older child used the the walk to school as a chance to contact the father secretly and he abducted her back. In the end the courts ruled that the older child say with him and the other stay with the mother because that was where they were at the time of the trial.

The courts don't want to deal with difficult cases. They only want clean, open and shut type cases where they can maintain the high numbers that J-courts are known for. The legal system in Japan is nothing more than a kabuki theatre.

[matsuki]

The problem is if Japan doesn't think it's a crime the J-police and courts refuse to get involved. There are many cases that have shown the j-system's thinking when it comes to applying law: in Japan the law protects citizens, Japanese citizens ONLY. They also seem to think that the child would be better off here rather than a barbarian country.

A little while back there was a story of a guy here who's wife claimed that he abused her and took the kids into a protection program in tokyo. This happened after the father filed for divorce because the mother was nuts. The program provided housing in a secret location, gave the wife and kids new names, hid them away for a few months, and enrolled one of the kids in a new school. Mom was abusive and reportedly struck the children. The older child used the the walk to school as a chance to contact the father secretly and he abducted her back. In the end the courts ruled that the older child say with him and the other stay with the mother because that was where they were at the time of the trial.

The courts don't want to deal with difficult cases. They only want clean, open and shut type cases where they can maintain the high numbers that J-courts are known for. The legal system in Japan is nothing more than a kabuki theatre.

Yeah, I realize the problems with that system in Japan but if someone is convicted of a crime in a country that has an extradition treaty with Japan, it shouldn't matter what the domestic view is on the crime, they were convicted in the other country.