8 ambassadors urge Japan to solve global child custody disputes

Saturday 17th October, 09:58 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 70 Total Comments Show All

European1 at 10:47 AM JST - 18th October

Country which allows and protect child abductions by ONLY JAPANESE do not deserve help. There is always WE Japanese are so pure and need your help, but not giving back the same.

Tokyo has argued that signing the convention may not protect Japanese women and their children from abusive foreign husbands...

Always the same old stories. Foreigners are always abusive and mom kidnapper must be protected in Japan. かわいいそうね。。。
igotchu at 10:51 AM JST - 18th October

Assuming Japan signs the Hague, frankly speaking, it will do nothing to solve these abductions and denial of access without an enforcement mechanism. In addition, foreign residents and Japanese parents without access to their children will see no change in this intolerable situation. While I would agree Japan should ev
igotchu at 11:19 AM JST - 18th October

Assuming Japan signs the Hague, frankly speaking, it will do nothing to solve these abductions and denial of access without an enforcement mechanism. In addition, foreign residents and Japanese parents without access to their children will see no change in this intolerable situation. While I would agree Japan should eventually sign the Hague, we should not support this move until there is changes to the domestic law.

Art. 12 of the Hague: The judicial or administrative authority, even where the proceedings have been commenced after the expiration of the period of one year referred to in the preceding paragraph, shall also order the return of the child, unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in its new environment.

Art. 13 sec. b of the Hague: Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that - b) there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.

The preceding two articles of the Hague deals mainly with the issue facing parents that do not reside in the state where the child has been abducted to. In other words, it deals with foreign parents issues and states clearly how the determination to return a child will be solely left up to the courts in Japan. Foreign parents issues will not be properly addressed until domestic parents issues are solved and this will require changes in the Family Law.

For the people who have been supporting this issue, we cannot allow a cosmetic solution to this problem. The Hague gives guidelines how to resolve cross border custody and access disputes, but enforcement guidelines are left up to the states which are signatories to the treaty. In my opinion, if Japan signs the Hague without changes to its domestic laws only those countries with the strongest amount of diplomatic pressure on Japan will see it enforced on behalf of its citizens. This is not what we are bargaining for, its all for one and one for all, all parents should have access to their kids.
lifehappiness at 01:07 PM JST - 18th October

Another comment from the peanut gallery. Japan's divorce laws were made for the Japanese people. Usually the mother get a lump sum payment and the father is not seen anymore, usually mutual. The father does not come back for visitation. Remember the prime minister Koizumi? He had this arrangement. It has worked fine until more and more international marriages have taken place. Should America change it's laws and ways based on another countries law? Not saying Japan has a good system and not saying it's bad, it's their system and while international issues all play a role in making changes. Where is it written that America has the best and only way to do things? We Americans are all over the world using the military and the military is promoting international marriages. One way to approach this and reduce the number of children affected is by education, not propaganda that America or western ideas are the way to go for the rest of the world. Sure these countries take our aid, wouldn't you if you had nothing and someone was offering you help? Japan is not a poor country but if America is giving stuff away, why not take it. If I was in situation in a country where by marrying a military person I could get myself a better way of living, I would most likely take it to better myself and not have to want to spend the rest of my life married to the military person. It’s done in America now by Americans, marrying to improve life and once it is, goodbye to the marriage. Americans do it all the time. There are lonely young men in the military that get attention from local girls/women because the locals want that chance for a better life. Our military should not be promoting this type of get together, but it is. On military TV and in printed information available. The military was setup in Japan after the war and decisions were made based partly/wholly on conventional warfare with the China/Korea problems. Also to help set it up again, like we are doing in Iraq, now. We have the equipment to put the military any where in the world in hours now and we certainly are not going to invade Korea or China with troops. We are in a big hole now with spending, why not call it a day in Japan and find another country to populate or bring the military home and let the resources serve a better cause, our own country.
Brantastik at 01:29 PM JST - 18th October

Sheesh. Japanese women get around:(

@lifehappiness

Well said son. Appreciate the unfiltered truth that is devoid in our censored world.
igotchu at 02:19 PM JST - 18th October

"Peanut Gallery", if your comment is geared towards me I will address it, if not I'll leave it to you, your wife, and her ex to sort out your personal issue.
Cicada at 08:27 PM JST - 18th October

lifehappiness:

Everything that was required to be able to move here was done with court approval and as soon as we got here, it was all taken away because we could not afford to fly back and fight. My point is not everything about these case is so clear to see or understand for that matter.

Indeed. Kind of makes you wonder why you bothered to conform to the court in the first place, I suppose.

You are lucky Japan is not forcing you to obey this unreasonable court order.
anthony39 at 03:46 AM JST - 19th October

My exerpience:

Japanese women are too bizarre. One flew to UK 3 times to visit me and even tried to pay me to visit her in Japan (i refused 140,000 yen she tried to pay me, but accepted free air ticket).

It was only afterwards that i realised she simiply wanted to become pregnant and bring up a child alone in Japan. She was duplicate and deceitful throughout.

Whilst Japan has such biased custody laws i expect this kind of behaviour will continue. Personally, knowing a little about the japanese culture and demographics, i don't expect to see any change in the law.
DwightVanWinkle at 04:17 AM JST - 19th October

"The only thing she did was marry well" - 18-year relationship, 14-year marriage, M.D.-PhD, 2 kids, bilingual mother, father, and children, great business success. Sounds like they both married well, and that's how Japanese law views property division when the wife does not work. It's also how any decent and rational human being views a marriage. She got nothing she was not entitled to in Japan.

"What evidence do you have that while during the court hearings in the US she was willing to do visitation if she was to move back to japan?"

She said she had never wanted to keep the children from the father, and her moving back to Japan does not show she did not mean that. The father has never claimed she wanted to keep the children from their father. He just said he wanted legally enforceable visitation, and did not want to be beholden to her for visitation. The father told a Japanese newspaper, when asked whether he wanted to live in the U.S. with the children, that Japan was fine as a place but would that the legal system would not guarantee visitation. Completely understandable, and if the move to Tennessee had worked out, it could have been great. In retrospect, forcing a divorce under Tennessee law, under the circumstances of divorce and quick remarriage, did not work.

It is clear from the hearing transcript that the stress on the mother was great - one of the parenting coordinators said that the first 2 years of a divorce are always traumatic, even with an American couple, and she thought the mother was sincere in trying to make it work. It didn't work, and blaming the mother helps nothing.

The mother was prisoner to assumptions about what Japanese mothers always do, which contributed to what she did. It was a vicious circle of fear, and I do not consider her moving back to Japan as proof that a Tennessee divorce was the only way.

Neither parent should be condemned. Both parents broke the law. Japan has shown leniency. I hope Tennessee and the U.S. will also. Criminalization of custodial interference is designed to keep broken families together, not to further divide them.
igotchu at 08:01 AM JST - 19th October

Anybody who thinks if Japan had signed the Hague this issue could have easily been resolved is sadly mistaken. There is no enforcement mechanism in the Hague and no enforcement mechanism in Japanese Family Law, period! Any of you out there facing this problem don't believe Japan's signature on the Hague will solve everything, actually it will solve nothing unless there is changes to the Family Law. No matter how much you Pacifist believe in mediation there will never be a mediated settlement in 100% of divorce cases. When crafting new legislation the government must take into account the worst case scenario, confrontational divorces, whereas mediation fails. There are many issues left to be resolved, but in my mind the two most important issues are one (1), how will the government enforce visitation rights when the custodial parent refuses to comply, and two (2), how will the government enforce the Hague when its requested by one of its members? Looking at this on bended knees with our fingers crossed is not the way, the Savoie incident answered our prayers and brought the media attention we needed, but now we must continue the fight. Foreign diplomacy alone is not going to resolve the issue. Left-Behind Parents must look this man in the eye, speak to Japanese politicians directly, and demand an enforcement mechanism be written into the Family Law. If you want access to your children now is the time to fight.
Alan at 08:25 AM JST - 19th October

Do these people even consider how the children feel about being used as pawns in this parental war? I'm amazed at their arrogance. They make a chaos of their own lives and then expect the judicial, law enforcement, immigration and political systems in two countries to protect their so-called parental rights. Kids have rights. Parents have duties. Here's some advice to those considering an "international" marriage. Have a long courtship. Talk about which country you're going to live in, what language the children will be brought up in, and any other cultural issues. After marriage, live together for a few years without children. If it doesn't work you can just walk away. Above all, don't have children as a way of fixing a broken marriage. Once you have children, be prepared to serve 16 years to life, regardless of your feelings for your spouse. And start and end every argument with the question, "How will this affect the kids?"
Makkun70 at 12:45 PM JST - 19th October

It escapes me how Japan can be included in the G8. It's so prehistoric and reationary on these issues.
kirakira25 at 08:49 PM JST - 19th October

@Alan - everything you say I think is great, sound advice. I would have followed it to the letter had I not got drunk with my new hubby one month after our marriage one fateful summer night! 3 kids later.....

Kids have rights. Parents have duties. Absolutely 100% agree with this.
gmfranc at 09:07 AM JST - 23rd October

The abduction of a child and denial of access to parents not proven unfit is kidnapping. Japan by its laws condones and facilitates the practice, placing it well at the bottom of my respect list, especially for a G7 country. The welfare and best interests of the child(ren) should be the paramount concern of any modern person, especially since the child(ren) legally has no voice of his/her own. There is sufficient scientific research demonstrating the importance of both parents in a child's life that only the willfully blind could argue that the Japanese situation is in the best interests of the child. As to whether Japan should change its laws to make some accommodation to the laws of other countries, the answer is yes. We do so in treaties regarding reciprocal enforcement of judgments, extradition, trade, etc. To hold otherwise is to say that it is OK to kidnap or kill as long as you can make it across the border in time, a proposition I believe none of us would support. And that this is the way it is done in Japan for Japanese is no counter argument ... if it were, we would ourselves justify supporting the continuation of slavery or child labor or the lack of rights for women to vote and so on ... "Well, that's just the way it is". Still, I agree that the situation is unlikely to change soon, despite diplomatic pressure, as the Japanese seldom change anything without a direct threat to their pocketbooks.
bdiego at 08:29 AM JST - 24th October

It hasn't worked fine. Any Japanese father who cares about his children is screwed under these laws, which we must point out are relatively recent laws in Japanese history. Nothing Japanese about them, if anything these laws ironically came about because of surrendering to Americans.