Child Abduction Issue Explodes

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

McFact No. 8 is a follow-up report about another case stating that even a few years later, McDonald's still had not done anything to improve the coffee situation in it's restaurants. The original plaintiff goes by a different name...

Oh, fuck! Here I've been -- influenced by Mr. Oxlong's testimony -- quaffing away on copious quantities of McCuppas in the belief it will restore my physical age to match its pre-school mentality. Instead, all that's going to happen is I'm going to get incurable cancer and third-degree burns throughout my mouth, caused by a lack of redress to prevent such occurrences, and in the face of repeated warnings. This kind of thing makes me want to call on the cops to bash up 8-year-old brats on motorcycles.

[Mulboyne]

[matsuki]

The convention stipulates that it is not necessary to return a child if there is a significant risk that the child will suffer damage physically and/or mentally. The subcommittee proposed that factors, such as the risk that the child will face violence back in the country of habitual residence and a situation in which it is difficult for the parents to take custody of the child, be considered.

I just hope the J-courts will require reasonable evidence of this type of shit (convictions, documented abuse, etc) or else it'll be everyone crying bullshit "DV!"

[Greji]

[Mulboyne]

...Translated: It means that all investigation, testimony and findings of the foreign court (where the divorce/offense actually occurred) don't mean shit in Japan. We'll decide it the unique Japanese way........

What..what...you mean the Yomiuri isn't being serious when they say this:

It will be important for the government to adopt the convention in a way that will not be positively or negatively biased toward Japan. The government needs to draw up criteria to match those of other countries.

[matsuki]

It will be important for the government to adopt the convention in a way that will not be positively or negatively biased toward Japan. The government needs to draw up criteria to match those of other countries.

It is important...but will they do it?

[Greji]

What..what...you mean the Yomiuri isn't being serious when they say this:

You only have to read the first sentence "......It will be important for the government to adopt the convention in a way that will not be positively or negatively biased toward Japan....." to get an idea of what's going to be the thinking on this.

[IparryU]

You only have to read the first sentence "......It will be important for the government to adopt the convention in a way that will not be positively or negatively biased toward Japan....." to get an idea of what's going to be the thinking on this.

"Negatively" biased towards Japan: Have all the wanted criminals sent back to the country which they are wanted in, and return the children to the parent that was given custody

"Positively" biased towards Japan: Japan will be allowed to refuse a former spouse's request to hand over the child

This is the whole deal... return the children to where they were taken from, return the criminals to the country where they are wanted, and prevent future abductions from being committed.

[Guest]

Signature campaign for joint custody in Japan.

http://lbpjapan.org/LBPJ_JC_Signature_Campaign/page.html

[matsuki]

[Guest]

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fl20120221hn.html

This is totally sickening.

Japan will sign the Hague and then force abducted children to "decide" after months of abuse, whether they want to return to their home countries. Children now make decisions for the family court system in Japan.

[gaijinpunch]

Disappointing... and predictable. What would they do w/o the final stamp of approval to protect their half-children who are not fully accepted in their cultural from whitey?

[Coligny]

[Guest]

Disappointing... and predictable.

Certainly is and was, but shocking none the less.

[IparryU]

[maraboutslim]

[twww]

came across this yesterday.

[YT]xT85_-Mi7vw[/YT]

[Guest]

but there are other things you should be focusing on.

1. From what age is the child eligible to decide
2. Where and how is the decision made
-e.g. in the court room, on paper, in front of parents, accompanied by lawyer, in room with a psychiatrist, one on one with the judge, etc.
3. Is the child allowed to speak with the "left behind" parent and for how, long?
4. Does the child get to know* why the parents divorced?
5. Does the child get to see* statements from Mom and Dad regarding why they want.
6. Does the child get to see* the overseas court documents
7. What language will this be carried out in**
8. How much longer after the decision will the child stay with the current parent (assuming the decision was to go "back")
9. If the child chooses not to decide, how will the decision be made?
-go back to the country with the first court decision or stay in Japan?

So Nakano, I can take a guess as to why you got off emotional (or seemed overemotional in my eyes) but if this is a serious matter, calling it sick now will be worst when the "real deal" comes into play.

The language is vague in the legislative stipulations by design. The answer to all your questions is the same... The Japanese court will decide. Which means, by experience, the Japanese court will say and do whatever necessary to make sure the Japanese parent gets what they want.

Under the current legislation it is quite obvious Japan has no intention whatsoever of returning a child. Whether it be past, present or future.

I find it deplorable children of any age would be forced to choose between two parents, especially after being abducted. The childrens' fate is a decision for grownups, not children.

[maraboutslim]

[Samurai_Jerk]

Then this is not about what's best for the children for you at all, is it?

I've ready several articles in the past that claim that according to child psychologist (in the US) children should not be asked or allowed to decide. That can apparently add to the trauma and feelings of guilt they have.

[IparryU]

I've ready several articles in the past that claim that according to child psychologist (in the US) children should not be asked or allowed to decide. That can apparently add to the trauma and feelings of guilt they have.

Very true, like asking who gets the bullet.... Mom or Dad?

[gaijinpunch]

How many abductors you reckon would have had the piss kicked out of them if this bullshit actually happened in the west? I figure in the US about 2% would end in some type of mass shooting, and 10% w/ some serious ass stomping.

[Sa_Race]

The first thing you want to do if your J-wife gives you the stink eye is exfiltrate your kids, right?

Serious question : is there a system in Japan allowing one parent to get the children blacklisted in customs/immigration/border guards databases? Do you need a court order or any legal ruling to do so? Is it automatic when you divorce?

[matsuki]

The first thing you want to do if your J-wife gives you the stink eye is exfiltrate your kids, right?

Serious question : is there a system in Japan allowing one parent to get the children blacklisted in customs/immigration/border guards databases? Do you need a court order or any legal ruling to do so? Is it automatic when you divorce?

We all hope we never have to deal with a situation like that but I think if the child is old enough, telling them a story about a little boy or girl who had their mother steal them away and say bad lies about their father only to grow up to find out the truth and eventually meet their father again, might go a long way.

[IparryU]

I am just going towait for that documetary to come out so i can have them watch and see whow the situation goes.

Of course when mama ai t around.

[gaijinpunch]

The first thing you want to do if your J-wife gives you the stink eye is exfiltrate your kids, right?

Serious question : is there a system in Japan allowing one parent to get the children blacklisted in customs/immigration/border guards databases? Do you need a court order or any legal ruling to do so? Is it automatic when you divorce?

Automatic no, but there is a system. When a mate's bird killed herself, the in-laws quickly did what the media does: blamed the gaijin, who was the father in this case.

He went to the embassy for advice, and the guy told him off the record that if they open a case of child abuse against him he will be arrested if he tries to leave the country with his daughter. He was gone in 48 hours... didn't even say good-bye. That was fucked up scenario to say the least.

[Guest]

FWIW, people you wish to persuade will take you more seriously if you lay off the loaded language like "abducted" and "abuse."

1) lock the parents in a room until they figure out how to make this work and don't return the children to either of them until they agree
2) let the children decide
3) put the kids with the mother unless she's mentally ill or otherwise terrible
4) force the parents to fly the kids back and forth all the time and "share" custody
5) let strangers (courts) in whatever country the children happen to be in at a given moment decide
6) let strangers (courts) in the mother's country decide
7) let strangers (courts) in the father's country decide

Abducted and abuse are not loaded language. It is what it is. Japanese use the same language when a foreign parent "returns home" with their children.

Also, in Japan, the children already decide the fate of the Left Behind Parent. It works like this. http://seanandrenee.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/back-to-blogging-and-alex-kahneys-story/

How any mother could subject her own children to this treatment is beyond me. This is about the most horrible thing I have read that a parent has ever done to their child.

[Guest]

Here a better link to how the Japanese ask very young children if they want to see their Left Behind Parent again. http://japanabductionrui.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/story-of-a-japanese-family-court-investigation-child-abduction-is-state-policy-part-3/

[maraboutslim]

[Russell]

To be fair, it is not the mother who is subjecting the children to this treatment: it is the petitioning father. The mothers did not get the courts involved. The mothers would prefer to handle this private, family issue in the manner the rights and traditions of their country always have.

Is it unfair or cruel to the fathers? From the cultural viewpoint of some of these foreign fathers, sure. But the fathers are adults. They got themselves into this situation and should have been well aware of what their legal rights would be should they fail to maintain a positive relationship with their wife.

What we should ask ourselves: Would a system that seeks/promotes shared custody arrangements through a contentious judicial custody battles (the usa system, for example) produce better future adults for society? Is it better for the children's well being?

Or would a system that tells fathers "the children belong to their mother and if you want to maintain a relationship with your children, you need to maintain a positive relationship with her," produce better future adults for society? Is that system better for the children's well being?

Yeah, I am sure all those fathers can keep a positive relationship with their former wives...