Hot Topics | |
---|---|
Samurai_Jerk wrote:IparryU wrote:GomiGirl wrote:chokonen888 wrote:BUT sometimes they just come across as "I hate him! I'll never let him see MY child."
This is such a sucky attitude.
The child isn't property or chattel to be used as leverage in a fight with another person. They are a person with their own rights and needs that should come second to the prejudices and battles of their genetic origins. Like it or not, the child has two parents and that needs to be respected. Telling a child that half of their genetic makeup came from a bad person just makes them confused about themselves.
But sadly, many selfish, weak and cowardly people don't fight fairly and the collateral damage falls onto the innocent.
This is the major issue in Japan. The dad just makes money and does fuck all for the family despite driving them places and picking up the tab, leaving the mothers with 100% responsibility with everything and they inherit the attitude of, "my children".
My ex changed my kids last names and was demanding a higher rate of child support and threatened to get lawyers on me if I didn't pay. Luckily, I did my research and talked to a few lawyers about this, and since she changed their names, the obligation to pay child support severely decreases in court as my sons are, "not mine" anymore and the child support I am paying now can be cut in half if lawyers are involved as I am paying much more than I need to and my ex is also receiving "single mother" allowance/benefits from the country.
Mind you, I told her this and she STFU really quick. She also threatened to call my office and I kindly notified her that she would be invoiced for time spent by my directors if she did.
Money talks, bullshit walks.
Did you consent to the name change or does she have right to do it without your consent?
IparryU wrote:Samurai_Jerk wrote:IparryU wrote:GomiGirl wrote:chokonen888 wrote:BUT sometimes they just come across as "I hate him! I'll never let him see MY child."
This is such a sucky attitude.
The child isn't property or chattel to be used as leverage in a fight with another person. They are a person with their own rights and needs that should come second to the prejudices and battles of their genetic origins. Like it or not, the child has two parents and that needs to be respected. Telling a child that half of their genetic makeup came from a bad person just makes them confused about themselves.
But sadly, many selfish, weak and cowardly people don't fight fairly and the collateral damage falls onto the innocent.
This is the major issue in Japan. The dad just makes money and does fuck all for the family despite driving them places and picking up the tab, leaving the mothers with 100% responsibility with everything and they inherit the attitude of, "my children".
My ex changed my kids last names and was demanding a higher rate of child support and threatened to get lawyers on me if I didn't pay. Luckily, I did my research and talked to a few lawyers about this, and since she changed their names, the obligation to pay child support severely decreases in court as my sons are, "not mine" anymore and the child support I am paying now can be cut in half if lawyers are involved as I am paying much more than I need to and my ex is also receiving "single mother" allowance/benefits from the country.
Mind you, I told her this and she STFU really quick. She also threatened to call my office and I kindly notified her that she would be invoiced for time spent by my directors if she did.
Money talks, bullshit walks.
Did you consent to the name change or does she have right to do it without your consent?
there is no joint custody in this cuntry... so yes, she had the right to do without my consent.
GomiGirl wrote:IPU - I am sorry you are going through this but I hope you are just keeping things civil for your kids sake.
They are too young to understand this stuff and while it is too easy to take pot shots at the ex, be the bigger man and teach your kids some important values.
Samurai_Jerk wrote:Awesome
I hate to say this but you might be heading for one of those situations where you get cut off from your kids. I remember before the divorce you said the in-laws liked you and knew their daughter was messed up. Are you still in good with them? If so, make sure that never changes.
IparryU wrote:We are both being rather civil about this and they boys are doing good. I see them every weekend and mom doesn't fret about it.
IparryU wrote:The mom and twin sister are still on good terms with me and I could care less about the dad. Life is ok thus far.
chokonen888 wrote:IparryU wrote:We are both being rather civil about this and they boys are doing good. I see them every weekend and mom doesn't fret about it.
She doesn't sound too civil...IparryU wrote:The mom and twin sister are still on good terms with me and I could care less about the dad. Life is ok thus far.
Good to hear. I wouldn't necessarily trust them but they may end up being the voice of reason for your ex.
chokonen888 wrote:If you guys do, count me in as well...FG father support group up in here. (though I'm apparently off the hook financially, I haven't seen the kiddo in a long time and don't expect to ever be able to)
gaijinpunch wrote:chokonen888 wrote:If you guys do, count me in as well...FG father support group up in here. (though I'm apparently off the hook financially, I haven't seen the kiddo in a long time and don't expect to ever be able to)
That fucking sucks big donkey balls. I feel a bit petty now. It's not all hams & plaque (he's not allowed to come over to my house, and definitely not sleep over) but I get to take him out for most of the day for my day on the weekend. Control freak, to say the least.
Screwed-down Hairdo wrote:Monday during the day I'm free and would love to join in...
IparryU wrote:Screwed-down Hairdo wrote:Monday during the day I'm free and would love to join in...
liquid lunch?
Screwed-down Hairdo wrote:IparryU wrote:Screwed-down Hairdo wrote:Monday during the day I'm free and would love to join in...
liquid lunch?
Trust me...you don't want to do a liquid lunch with me.
IparryU wrote:Screwed-down Hairdo wrote:IparryU wrote:Screwed-down Hairdo wrote:Monday during the day I'm free and would love to join in...
liquid lunch?
Trust me...you don't want to do a liquid lunch with me.
why not? i will just cc everyone in email to arrange for this weekend... i just dont got gaijinpunch's email...
Screwed-down Hairdo wrote:IparryU wrote:Screwed-down Hairdo wrote:IparryU wrote:Screwed-down Hairdo wrote:Monday during the day I'm free and would love to join in...
liquid lunch?
Trust me...you don't want to do a liquid lunch with me.
why not? i will just cc everyone in email to arrange for this weekend... i just dont got gaijinpunch's email...
If it is, I'm in (especially if it's Shinjuku)
Mike Oxlong wrote: anyone wanna shout for a LCC boarding pass?
Screwed-down Hairdo wrote:Mike Oxlong wrote: anyone wanna shout for a LCC boarding pass?
If you mean "shout" as in holler, I'd be more than happy to do so, but if you're insinuating you're in need of a fare (as I fear you are), I'm afraid I'm of absolutely no help at all as I'm gonna struggle with the few hundred yen I need to get to Shinjuku as it is anyway....Sorry, it would have been lovely to have seen you.
Mike Oxlong wrote:I'm afraid my travel budget is as limited as yours.
Court rules parents who keep estranged partners from seeing children can be fined
NATIONAL APR. 02, 2013 - 02:55PM JST ( 2 )TOKYO —
Japan’s supreme court has ruled that parents who fail to respond to an estranged partner’s requests to see their children can be fined.
The announcement comes as the result of a series of cases in which biological parents failed to respond to requests from the former spouses to see their children. The cases resulted in a supreme court ruling on March 28 stating that the individual who proposed the meeting must make the purpose and content of the meeting clear, Fuji TV reported.
Furthermore, the court ruled that the Sapporo high court’s decision to indirectly coerce non-compliant parents using monetary fines was legal. For the first instance of non-compliance, a fine of 50,000 yen is mandated by the Sapporo high court.
A team consisting of presiding judge Ryuko Sakurai and four other judges considered the issue and agreed that, “the needs of the child should be considered and prioritized by the law. We are implementing flexible laws, in the hope that cooperation can be achieved in private without recourse to legal coercion.”
Japan's parliament has approved an international treaty on child abductions after decades of pressure from the United States and other Western nations.
Japan is the only member of the Group of Eight major industrialised nations that has not ratified the 1980 Hague Convention, which requires nations to return snatched children to the countries where they usually reside.
Hundreds of parents, mostly men, from North America, Europe and elsewhere have been left without any recourse after their estranged partners took their half-Japanese children back to the country.
Unlike Western nations, Japan does not recognise joint custody and courts almost always order that children of divorcees live with their mothers.
US lawmakers have long demanded action from Japan on the issue, one of the few open disputes between the close allies. In February, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe promised action after White House talks with US President Barack Obama.
The upper house of parliament on Wednesday voted unanimously for Japan to join the treaty, following a similar move by the more powerful lower house last month.
But Japan must still clear various governmental and legislative hurdles before the Hague Convention can take full effect.
Kanchou wrote:In other words, it's never gonna happen.
U.S. lawmakers seek accords on abducted children
A congressional committee called Thursday for the United States to reach legal agreements with Japan and other countries to help resolve hundreds of cases of children abducted by estranged parents.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee approved a bill to require the U.S. secretary of state to reach memoranda of understanding with all nations not party to the 1980 Hague Convention, which requires the return of kidnapped children to wherever they usually live.
The bill, which needs approval of the full House of Representatives and Senate, would seek to establish a mechanism with each country so that children would be returned within six weeks of an abduction report.
“Parental child abduction is child abuse. These victims are American citizens who need the help of their government when normal legal processes are unavailable or fail,” Representative Chris Smith, the sponsor of the bill, said at a hearing which took place despite a partial government shutdown.
Smith named the bill after David Goldman, who succeeded in bringing his son Sean back to the United States after a five-year fight with Brazilian courts.
The largest number of US cases involve Japan, whose courts virtually never grant custody to foreign parents, even if the Japanese mother has died.
Paul Toland, who attended the hearing, said he has not seen his daughter Erika since she was an infant in 2003. After the death of her mother, Erika has been in custody of her maternal grandmother.
“Hopefully, this bill will stir the government to action to help bring our kids home,” said Toland, who served in Japan in the U.S. Navy.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, like his predecessor, has voiced support for Japan’s entrance into The Hague Convention.
But parents have voiced concern that, even if Japan’s parliament ratifies the treaty, it would only apply to future cases.
The State Department has said that it puts a top priority on resolving abductions, although it has stopped short of supporting moves by lawmakers to impose sanctions over the issue.
Samurai_Jerk wrote:Send in Seal Team 6.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests