Child Abduction Issue Explodes

[Samurai_Jerk]

Send in Seal Team 6.

You really want everyone dead and top secret choppers blown to bit behind enemy lines ?

Yes.

[American Oyaji]

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/get-miya-back

Situation in my own back yard.

Japanese father trying to run back to Japan with his daughter. Temporarily stopped.
Spread the word.

[matsuki]

Will the hague work on this one? Sounds like she was just short of the time required for jurisdiction, not sure if that's the same requirement for the Hague to be applicable. Also, wouldn't she win custody in a Japanese court for simply being the mother? (even if FG)

[Takechanpoo]

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/get-miya-back

Situation in my own back yard.

Japanese father trying to run back to Japan with his daughter. Temporarily stopped.
Spread the word.

seems like that american woman is a bit drama queen.
so its better for her daughter to be with her dad.
and japan needs more hafu girls for the porn industry.

[American Oyaji]

Remind me to kill you when I'm in Japan next time.
Very slowly and painfully.

[Coligny]

3127.15 Jurisdictional basis for initial custody determination.
(A) Except as otherwise provided in section 3127.18 of the Revised Code, a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial determination in a child custody proceeding only if one of the following applies:

(1) This state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state.

I don't understand legal english too well. But that 6 month rule doesn't read as "must have been in ohio for 6 month" but more "must be in ohio, or must have been in ohio around 6 month or less from the start date"

But she clearly state:

In the state of Ohio, you have to live here for 6 months before this court has jurisdiction. I was 9 days shy

There have been so many indigogo and quickstarter scams that I'm a bit skeptical...

Moar:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3127.15

[matsuki]

seems like that american woman is a bit drama queen.
so its better for her daughter to be with her dad.

She does sound a bit dramatic but if there is documentation of the abuse she's claiming, I hope he gets his ass beat. Also, she couldn't have waited 9 more days to file? That is either really dumb or really sketchy.

and japan needs more hafu girls for the porn industry.

I thought you only liked em Korean?

[Takechanpoo]

originally their life basement was in Japan, according to what she said.
it means she abducted their daughter first to ohio, right?
and then her ex abducted her back.

[IparryU]

Remind me to kill you when I'm in Japan next time.
Very slowly and painfully.

dont kill him... that ends the torture process.

[Samurai_Jerk]

originally their life basement was in Japan, according to what she said.
it means she abducted their daughter first to ohio, right?
and then her ex abducted her back.

It seems like that might be the case but there's not enough info to be sure. Even if the mother is completely in the wrong I don't care. Until Japan does something about it's own rachi mondai, Japanese nationals should have zero rights by default in child custody cases overseas.

[American Oyaji]

This one is legit.
I said it was in my backyard. A Japanese female friend is her friend and I got this from HER Facebook page.
She's not a silly gyaru either. She's a translator for big H.

And yeah....not to the death....

To the pain.

[inflames]

This one is legit.
I said it was in my backyard. A Japanese female friend is her friend and I got this from HER Facebook page.
She's not a silly gyaru either. She's a translator for big H.

And yeah....not to the death....

To the pain.

From Ohio?
Seems like a shit case... the judge is going by common sense (and common, US law, which doesn't apply in Japan). Obvious thing for her to do is to get in touch with Rep. Chris Smith (from NJ, famous for Japanese abduction cases) ASAP.

Best thing for the wife might be to enter into a custodial arrangement with the husband, then try to sue his lawyers if/when husband runs off with the kid (yeah, the asshole might run off with kids but the lawyers can be liable based on a preponderance of evidence [such as have a nationality that just always fucking runs off with the kids]).

[Takechanpoo]

http://star-ress-a.sakura.ne.jp/blog2/

[matsuki]

http://star-ress-a.sakura.ne.jp/blog2/

No background info?

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/get-miya-back

Situation in my own back yard.

Japanese father trying to run back to Japan with his daughter. Temporarily stopped.
Spread the word.

Facebook update:

We officially got the stay. The judge was out sick so we didn't get the motion to enforce. His attorneys have made it clear that he wont comply regardless. Usually you would file a motion for contempt, but that is set for a hearing about 6 weeks down the road which doesn't help us. Nicole was able to speak with Miya today and it's obvious she misses us very much. We will let everyone know as soon as we can if there is more. Please share this page everyday and thank you to everyone who is keeping us in their thoughts and prayers.

Not sure that she will get what she wants for US courts but since the daughter would have been in the US longer than 6 months by now, can't help but think a Japanese court would award her custody and she would be allowed to bring the girl back to the US.

[Russell]

Hague treaty returns two children to Japan

Two children from separate families who were taken by one of their parents to Switzerland and the United States were returned to Japan last month in accordance with the Hague convention on child abduction, Foreign Ministry officials said Friday.

According to the ministry, an 8-year-old child was taken to Switzerland by his American father. The Japanese mother successfully applied in August for help from the ministry.

After Swiss authorities tracked down the child, a Swiss court issued an order in September for the child to return to Japan.

In the other case, the mother took her 3-year-old child to the United States, prompting the father to seek assistance from the ministry in June. After negotiations, the mother and child voluntarily returned to Japan, the ministry said.

[...]

Since Japan joined the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in April, the ministry has received 77 requests for assistance as of Friday.

Of those requests, 57 involved parents seeking visitation, eight others wanted the return of a child taken abroad from Japan, and 12 sought the return of a child brought to Japan from overseas.

[...]

The treaty was applied to help resolve cross-border custody disputes involving a Japanese national for the first time in July, when a British court ordered the return of a 7-year-old child who had been taken to Britain and kept there by the child’s Japanese mother.

In that case, the Japanese father did not ask for help from the Japanese ministry, but sought assistance from British authorities.

According to the father’s lawyer, the mother took their 7-year-old child to Britain at the end of March because of her work, as the Japanese couple were going through a divorce. When the child didn’t return in four weeks as the father expected, he applied to the British government in May for support based on the international treaty.

Britain’s High Court later ruled that keeping the child in the country was illegal under the international treaty and ordered the mother to return the child to Japan.

The mother reportedly said that her work took her to England, and she had no intention of abducting the child. She said she was planning to return the child to Japan at the end of the month, regardless of the court’s decision.

More

My impression is that it was a good move of Japan to sign this treaty.

Why did it take them so long?

[kurogane]

Great to hear the treaty is working as it should, and stopping evil foreigner from taking precious resource from demographically challeneged country to country of too many fat white people.

Or something like that.................................


Russell,

My impression about their reluctance to sign the treaty was mostly a sense of that BS exceptionalism thing, and the more cogent idea that it is better not to have meddlesome international bodies interfering in domestic affairs (in both senses). Plus, statistically speaking, it's a light breeze in a teacup. It's only because it's such an emotional and potentially relevant issue that so many Amerikkkans make such a big sqwuak about it, which is fair enough as a hot button topic. But less hysteric, emocentric subliterate fat boy on a talk show style whining would probably help the cause.

[matsuki]

It's sad that the "Us (innocent J-woman) vs. Them (abusive FG man)" mindset overpowered the fact that by far most abduction cases are J vs. J and domestic. (and signing has a direct effect on the handling of those cases as well)

Why did it take them so long?

1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

[wagyl]

Why did it take them so long?

1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The list of dates of entry in the link here is rather interesting. No one entered before 1988 anyway. Singapore, 2012... (and why does the US State Department think that Singapore uses the flag of Senegal?)

I mean, almost the entire booklet is focused on "the 3%" white male/Japanese female marriages. The one part that isn't is a J-d00d with a French wife? WTF? Kinda crazy that they'd ignore the other 97% scenario but from what I've heard from both men and women here, the image of those 97% J-men is "dirtly old loser men who can't get a Japanese wife so they take a Philippina or Chinese bride from a snack or hostess club." (Which I guess would be embarrassing for the MOFA to illustrate??) I guess it's not reasonable to think any of those 97% J-dudes just simply met their wife when travelling/working abroad?

Perhaps the reason they're not focusing on the statistical majority makeup of international marriages in Japan is because the majority of those people have nationalities whose country has not signed on to the Hague C on child abduction.

Talking to these people about their options with Hague is a little moot if they don't have that legal option.

I'm not sure you should criticise: better late than never, which was the other option.

[IparryU]

Ok, lets see some kids get sent back to the US, UK, France, and OZ/NZ. Pretty sure there is a fuck of a lot more, but those are the majority of cases AFAIK.

[matsuki]

The list of dates of entry in the link here is rather interesting. No one entered before 1988 anyway. Singapore, 2012... (and why does the US State Department think that Singapore uses the flag of Senegal?)

Good to know....and WTF with the flag?

I'm not sure you should criticise: better late than never, which was the other option.

Indeed, though will be interesting to see the outcomes of the trials/submissions where kiddos have been whisked away to Japan. (or maybe the signing of it will simply result in much less of it since they theoretically won't get away with it like before) Either way, a step in the right direction.

[havill]

Unfortunately, I think the only thing that's going to occur with this... both on the Japanese and non-Japanese side... are games regarding the "logging of time" with the kid in a particular country, to gain/keep the "habitual residence" label that Hague requires to basically "lock" the kid in that country. This has already happened with famous public cases in the past.

"You want Ken to visit his grandparents and in-laws during summer vacation in Florida and improve his English? No, sorry, maximum 27* days."

The end result is that parents in rocky international marriages will be afraid of ever sending their kid anywhere, for fear of losing the security of "habitual residence" Hague uses to determine if a child belongs in that country or not.

* I made that number up.

[havill]

Ok, lets see some kids get sent back to the US, UK, France, and OZ/NZ. Pretty sure there is a fuck of a lot more, but those are the majority of cases AFAIK.

I couldn't tell if you were talking about past cases or not, but FYI, Hague is not retroactive　(that's why there are dates on that state.gov list I posted which is listed above; if the abduction occurred before the date, Hague can't help you). Many in the U.S. are trying to get a special exception made outside of the Treaty, but the treaty is very clear on that. If it was retroactive there would be no way any countries would join it.

[Wage Slave]

Unfortunately, I think the only thing that's going to occur with this... both on the Japanese and non-Japanese side... are games regarding the "logging of time" with the kid in a particular country, to gain/keep the "habitual residence" label that Hague requires to basically "lock" the kid in that country. This has already happened with famous public cases in the past.

"You want Ken to visit his grandparents and in-laws during summer vacation in Florida and improve his English? No, sorry, maximum 27* days."

The end result is that parents in rocky international marriages will be afraid of ever sending their kid anywhere, for fear of losing the security of "habitual residence" Hague uses to determine if a child belongs in that country or not.

* I made that number up.

Fair enough but is that a very sensible number? If a child lives in and goes to school in country A then I can't imagine that spending the entire summer vacation and perhaps even Christmas/New Year in country B is going to even marginally undo clear habitual residence in country A. And in any case, typically people can't afford either the time or the funds to engage in that sort of holidaying.

So it's difficult to imagine that this potential chilling effect of the Treaty will be very significant. And further, if a marriage was already rocky then it is extremely doubtful that the absence of the treaty would make consent for travel more likely. Surely it would be less likely, because there is no way to enforce a return.

[wagyl]

And in any case, typically people can't afford either the time or the funds to engage in that sort of holidaying.

Not to discount any of the sensible points you made in your post -- I agree with the suggestion that a firmer framework helps facilitate more normal transfer of the children within more reasonable families -- but i think you should not forget that people seem to find remarkable resources when

• it has an influence on their ability to continue to have access to their children, and
• it provides a means to use those children as pawns to get back at that bitch.

[havill]

Fair enough but is that a very sensible number? If a child lives in and goes to school in country A then I can't imagine that spending the entire summer vacation and perhaps even Christmas/New Year in country B is going to even marginally undo clear habitual residence in country A. And in any case, typically people can't afford either the time or the funds to engage in that sort of holidaying.

It doesn't take a rich jet-setter for an international couple to move around.

The most common tactic foreigners use "I got transferred back to / I found a much better job in my home country, so we need to go there so I can make a living and provide for the family." What the Japanese spouse often can't confirm is that a foreign spouse, determined to "change" the child's habitual residence, can often covertly "engineer" their "can't turn down" transfer by the amount of effort they put into the overseas search or the lack of effort in their current job.

I can see a lot of Japanese spouses with rocky international marriages refusing to follow their foreign spouses overseas now for the sake of their career (compared to pre-Hague)... for fear that their children will get "locked" into that foreign country by habitual residence tests. They'll probably either say "have fun! When you figure out how to resume your career back in Japan, we'll be waiting here!" or file for separation or divorce.

[Wage Slave]

Fair enough but is that a very sensible number? If a child lives in and goes to school in country A then I can't imagine that spending the entire summer vacation and perhaps even Christmas/New Year in country B is going to even marginally undo clear habitual residence in country A. And in any case, typically people can't afford either the time or the funds to engage in that sort of holidaying.

It doesn't take a rich jet-setter for an international couple to move around.

The most common tactic foreigners use "I got transferred back to / I found a much better job in my home country, so we need to go there so I can make a living and provide for the family." What the Japanese spouse often can't confirm is that a foreign spouse, determined to "change" the child's habitual residence, can often covertly "engineer" their "can't turn down" transfer by the amount of effort they put into the overseas search or the lack of effort in their current job.

I can see a lot of Japanese spouses with rocky international marriages refusing to follow their foreign spouses overseas now for the sake of their career (compared to pre-Hague)... for fear that their children will get "locked" into that foreign country by habitual residence tests. They'll probably either say "have fun! When you figure out how to resume your career back in Japan, we'll be waiting here!" or file for separation or divorce.

Well that's a totally different thing from refusing to allow visits/vacations is it not? For a lot of people it isn't too hard to see that their career is likely to be a lot better outside this country than in. There's no need to engineer that very much given the relative state of things economic and corporate for the last 20 odd years.

To be real about it, if the relationship has broken down to that extent, then convention or no convention, there isn't a lot of point in a spouse following someone abroad to live. You might as well call it quits and be done with it in a civilised and reasonable way because the geographical cure almost never works. On the contrary in fact.

[wagyl]

To be real about it, if the relationship has broken down to that extent, then convention or no convention, there isn't a lot of point in a spouse following someone abroad to live. You might as well call it quits and be done with it in a civilised and reasonable way because the geographical cure almost never works. On the contrary in fact.

The tricky thing about all these discussions is, to be real about it, if the relationship hasn't broken down to that extent, then there is no need for any Hague Conventions. It is a system brought into place where you hope that it is never necessary, but is necessary more often than you would expect.

An excellent point about how changing the location rarely is the solution to a problem, and is more likely to add to it.

[matsuki]

Although I have no doubt there will be games played by both sides, wouldnt you expect it to deter shakey relationships from producing kids and more motivation to work things out amicably rather than get the law involved? I know it's asking too much to be rational when emotions are involved but at the very least, the corrisponding domestic laws in Japan should encourage a change from the divorce-cut the kids off from your ex mindset?

[Mike Oxlong]

Charges against Milwaukee mother reduced

It has been years since a child, illegally taken overseas by her mother, was returned home to Wisconsin. That mother's finally being sentenced. But the punishment may not fit the crime. TODAY'S TMJ4's Michele Fiore reports.

The girl was five years old when she was removed from her home and everyone she knew, and forced to live in Japan. She didn't see her father for over three years. His fears are back today, because the charge has been greatly reduced.

When we first met Moises Garcia in 2011, he was choked up, thinking about all the holidays the two had missed.

"There were three Christmases before that she wasn't there," Moises told TMJ4 back then.

Karina was brought home after Garcia's ex-wife Emiko Inoue was discovered in Hawaii. The child's a teen now and living with her dad.

"But unfortunately there were a lot of wounds and we're still in the process of healing and unfortunately with the situation, it's hard," said Garcia.

On Thursday, Inoue returns to court for sentencing, but something's changed. Inoue was originally charged with a felony, but because she's met certain stipulations, it's been dropped to disorderly conduct.

"I think that we should send a strong message that kidnapping, abduction is a crime for children and the least we can request of the court is to find her guilty on child neglect," said Garcia.

Garcia's concerned that a misdemeanor conviction may put his daughter at risk.

"But if the charges are minimized, my ex-wife may be able to become an American citizen and this protection will be stopped," said Garcia.

That protection is the no-fly list which Inoue's presently on. Garcia wonders if she'll be able to get off that list.

"And that would be the message that we're sending to the Japanese government and other abductors that you can take children for years and then come back here and just get a little slap on the wrist," said Garcia.

A spokesman for the D.A.'s office tells us a deal had to be reached back then to ensure the child's safe return from Japan. Inoue hasn't even seen her daughter in three years, and the D.A.'s office is confident that initial visits would be supervised ones.

http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/299115481.html

[kurogane]

Astounding somebody that obviously homo sounding could get it up to father a child. Whatta emospazz.

I still say Burn Her. more fun that way.