Patrick McPike's past comments

  • -1

    Patrick McPike

    @sfjp330

    The best interest of the child argument is a smokescreen. The goverment is really acting in its own best interest and using innocent children as pawns. Also, arrogant family court judges, corrupt lawmakers, and nosy social service bureaucrats that lectures fathers about their responsibilities are conspicuously and conveniently silent when it comes to enforcing a father's visitation rights. Where are these same righteous snot noses then? The answer is that it is not profitable for the goverment to enforce a father's visitation rights, while it is profitable to collect child support from him. It’s about money, not the "best interest of the child".

    I basically agree with everything that you just wrote. Or I at least agree that it is that Government's basic attitude.

    That is why parents, AND concerned citizens, have to stand up and call for change. It needs to be about the children - and not simply what is convenient for the bureaucracy; or a cash cow for attorneys.

    I would suggest that Japan's future success actually requires such changes.

    A right that cannot be enforced is no a "right". So the current Japanese system is basically saying that parents have no rights.

    Japan needs to restore the family system. (Many other countries, like the US, need to do so as well - but they have the advantage of more open immigration policies to maintain population). And the start of that is protecting family relationships by making parental rights something enforceable.

    Posted in: Court rules parents who keep estranged partners from seeing children can be fined

  • -1

    Patrick McPike

    What I'm referring to is how Japanese court will decide if the situation was in Japan. In all likelihood, one stable parent will get a sole custody and the visitation request by the unstable parent would be declined, as it should be.

    You would think... but that isn't how Japanese Family Courts make decisions. Custody is based primarily on possession/abduction. But don't take my word for it - I refer you to several of my provided links above referring to material written by legal experts. If you want more details I suggest:

    http://youtu.be/P3g3g_0r01c

    and

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/15499/from-the-shadows-documentary-reflects-sad-reality-of-government-sponsored-child-abduction-in-japan

    We are talking about "abuse" right? Because parent to parent conflict is in essence what resulted in the divorce.

    I'm merely pointing out that parent-2-parent conflict doesn't necessarily mean parent-2-child conflict. Each situation needs to be evaluated to ensure that the children's interests are being put first.

    Modern but lame. Reducing the frequency of transitions? Good luck with parents agreeing to an alternate schedule when they have a proven history of not agreeing to the simplest and most petty of things.

    But that is the point. When you leave the decision up to the most uncooperative parent (Japan's system), the child's interests are not being cared for. If you remove the incentive to be "uncooperative", the level of conflict usually subsides. If the conflict doesn't subside, the more cooperative parent should be the primary guardian - as they are demonstrating the most willingness to protect the child's interest.

    Instead the Japanese system, by its nature, generally places the child with the least cooperative parent - who then has ultimate control of the child (as that is the nature of the Japanese sole-custody system).

    Posted in: Court rules parents who keep estranged partners from seeing children can be fined

  • -1

    Patrick McPike

    @sfjp330

    You continue to deflect from the actual issue of custody.

    In addition you a lumping "dead-beat dads" in with parents who are actively fighting to have a relationship with their children. How do you justify lumping the two categories together?

    U.S. tracks better than Japan? What a joke.

    Very well, what are the child support stats in Japan? How about the child abuse stats?

    For poor mothers, child support payments represent 45% of their income.

    So shouldn't that be even more incentive to fix the system in Japan?

    http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2013/04/04/does-harsh-child-support-enforcement-work/

    Studies show that child support compliance improves with shared parenting. This stands to reason. Why is it that parents who are migrant workers living in barracks thousands of miles from their children send their meager earnings back home? Why is it that parents work two or three jobs making it almost impossible for them to enjoy time with their children? Obviously, to support their children. Why do parents work in deadly dangerous jobs? Again, for their children.

    The answer is so simple - parents will sacrifice for children they feel belong to them. Take their children away, eliminate their voice in decision-making, let the custodial parent move far away, prohibit contact with children based on a phony restraining order, or place parental rights in the hands of a hostile ex, and they no longer feel like parents. Although most will pay child support anyway, many will not walk the last mile for kids who no longer belong to them.

    Posted in: Court rules parents who keep estranged partners from seeing children can be fined

  • -1

    Patrick McPike

    Why would you say that?

    Because:

    I've seen the system at work first hand; I've talked to numerous Japanese legal experts; etc. I've been dealing with, and researching, this problem for two years now.

    I can see that when both parents are not "abusive" or "crazy", the Japanese court would most likely award the custodial rights to the mother.

    You would think.. but it doesn't work that way. As I mentioned, that mother (even having admitted all that) has custody in Japan after abducting the child there. The system in Japan is broken. That is my point.

    If one parent is abusive, you do what is necessary at all costs.

    I agree. However, there can be a difference between abuse in the relationship between the parents vs. what exists in the parent-child relationship. The goal is to protect the child. So just because there is parent-to-parent conflict doesn't necessarily mean that the child should be deprived of the relationship with both parents. It is something that must be monitored and balanced.

    http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/joincust.htm

    I see your outdated article and raise you with a modern one:

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/co-parenting-after-divorce/201205/co-parenting-and-high-conflict

    For many years the research supported the position that shared parenting in situations of high conflict was harmful to children. More recently, however, this research has been scrutinized and found wanting, and a different viewpoint has emerged. Previous research examined the frequency of alternating contact, and found negative outcomes for children in situations of high conflict and a high frequency of alternations between mothers’ and fathers’ homes; that is, children were being exposed to their parents’ conflict during frequent transitions between the two households. When the frequency of transitions is reduced, and high conflict parents avoid direct contact with each other during the transitions and shield their children from their conflict, these negative effects disappear.

    More recent research has examined actual parenting time as opposed to frequency of contact (less frequent transitions, but shared or equal parenting time), and has found not only that shared parenting is not harmful in high conflict situations, but shared parenting can ameliorate the harmful effects of high conflict: a warm relationship with both parents is a protective factor for children.

    Again, the Japanese system encourages the abducting parent to make things as "high conflict" as possible. If you remove the incentives to to be high-conflict, you reduce the level of conflict. Win-Win for the children.

    Posted in: Court rules parents who keep estranged partners from seeing children can be fined

  • -1

    Patrick McPike

    Is U.S. doing any better on custody cases?

    Yes. As are many other countries that prompt shared parenting. None are perfect, but they are at least trying to put the children first.

    There are thousands and thousands of deadbeat fathers in U.S. that court or legal system and they do not enforce at all.

    A) that is deflection from the issue of the broken Japanese custody system. B) the US tracks it better than Japan, so hard to do an apples to apples comparison on that related, but separate, issue.

    Japan is a prolonged (at least two decades) economic stagnation which has created increase in divorce.

    Actually, Japan traditionally had high divorce rates. Gaiatsu brought about changes in the domestic law that reduced it. But it has been rising again http://amzn.to/12kTY0p

    That said, I'm not singling out Japan with regard to divorce rates. As you say, this is an overall unfortunate trend in too many countries.

    Years of stagnant or declining incomes have made Japanese men less attractive as potential partners

    A) deflection from the custody issue. B) Marriage, in general, has lost its appeal. This is due to numerous social factors which, while related, are still separate issue.

    Many working women have delayed the marriage or have decides they don't need to get married.

    A) deflection from the custody issue. B) This has less to do with economic stagnation and more to due with Japan's social attitudes towards working women, the assumption that marriage == children, and the attitude towards career women after children see: http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-gender-gap

    There are also shortage of public day care centers

    A) deflection from the custody issue. B) This is due to the plummeting birth rate. Simple supply and demand.

    So what makes you think J-goverment will enforce legal protection in custody case?

    Are you saying that parents should abandon their children merely because trying to get the government to do the right thing is difficult? Can't never did... and, if you note the article that we are commenting on, estranged parents seem to be making progress.

    "The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members."

    Children deserve protection.

    Posted in: Court rules parents who keep estranged partners from seeing children can be fined

  • -1

    Patrick McPike

    Messed up. Mother shouldn't even had visitation rights if it were true.

    But in the Japanese system, she gets sole custody. The father is the one who gets cut out.

    This is where the father should of taken the kids far away from her similar to what the Japanese spouses should of done.

    There are a few problems with this. 1) The "Japanese spouses" doing the abduction can actually be the abusers. The Japanese legal system doesn't actually care - abduction wins. 2) The point is to be concerned about the child's best interest. Children do best when they have a relationship with both parents. Cutting a child off from a loving parent (even if that parent and the other don't get along) harms the child - and has long term emotional consequences. The Japanese courts do not function in a way that ensures a child gets to maintain relationships. One parent - the abductor - gets absolute control.

    Aren't you doing exactly that?

    No. I'm trying to show that cases can't all be lumped together. That abductors can't be assumed to be in the right. That fathers can't be assumed to be in the wrong. That details need to actually be looked at. I'm also suggesting that I've seen a pattern in the cases that I am familiar with - but I'm also only interacting with cases where the non-abducting parent is fighting for the right to see their children. Doesn't the mere fact that these parents are fighting against all the odds just to be able to see and have a relationship with their children indicate that their is a better than average chance that they might be good good parents? This aren't parent's who don't care and want to just walk away. They do care and ar willing to fight for the right to see their children.

    So on the flip side... isn't it possible that a parent who is willing to completely cut out a loving parent from the life of the child isn't looking out for the best interests of the child? And is merely being selfish?

    As others have stated, most all of divorces does not involve any court proceeding...

    That is at least in part because of how the Japanese system is structured. In court, the outcome is predetermined - abductors get custody. Also, the mediation process is designed to beat down the other parent. They are pushed by the mediators to "give in" to the abducting parent's desires. This makes it easy on the court - but doesn't look after what is actually best for the children.

    it's certainly better than constantly living in an environment where children has to witness the continued bickering between the parents despite the fact that they no longer live together.

    A) Studies disagree. Having two parents in the picture is generally better for the child - even if there is conflict.

    B) Under the Japanese system the less abducting parent is incentivized to increase the level of conflict. Increasing the conflict actually benefits the abducting parent, as the court gives in more to them (as japanese courts are ignoring modern child psychology and are still using the same thought process you mentioned). If instead, the court deincentivized conflict and actually prioritized the child's interests - the level of conflict would actually decrease in the vast majority of cases; to the increased benefit of the child. This has been demonstrated over and over as most industrialized countries have moved to the presumption of shared parenting.

    Posted in: Court rules parents who keep estranged partners from seeing children can be fined

  • -2

    Patrick McPike

    @sfjp330

    The assertion that father don't get any visitation in Japan is not an accurate statement.

    Your own statements contradict your assertion. As you point out, visitation is based on voluntary compliance. Although the Japanese Court system officially recognizes the importance of visitation for the child's best interests ( http://www.courts.go.jp/video/kodomovideo/flv/kodomobb_01.html ) the system is not set up to actual ensure that the child's best interest is made the priority. Even when (the unenforceable) visitation is granted, the standard in on the lines of a few hours a month - again, prioritizing the desire of the parent in "possession" of the child over the *actual* best interests of the child.

    In addition, the statistics don't back you up:

    Disputes over visitation are dramatically increasing in Japan. The number of cases has almost quadrupled over the last ten years, from 1,700 mediated divorce cases and 290 judicial divorce cases in 1998, to 6,260 mediated divorce cases and 1,000 judicial divorce cases in 2008. These disputes are never easy to resolve, and out of a combined 7,100 conciliation and judicial divorce cases that have been resolved, less than 49% resulted in any kind of visitation award. Only half of these decisions resulted in visitation one or more days every month, and only 15% allowed overnight stays. Furthermore, it is common for the parties not to honor their agreements even when the parties agree, and issues of visitation remain to the end, even in cases that have reached family court, becoming cases that "cannot be cleanly resolved."

    Behind these statistics is the rising divorce rate in Japan. Over 251,000 married couples separated in 2008, and if this number is divided by the 726,000 marriages in the same year, roughly one out of every 2.9 marriages will end in divorce. Out of all divorcing couples, 144,000 have children, equaling about 245,000 children in all. Seeing as roughly 1.09 million children were born this year, about one out of every 4.5 children will experience divorce before reaching adulthood. Even with the increase in visitation awards, only about 2.6% of the 245,000 children affected by divorce will be allowed visitation.

    This raises the question of whether the remaining 97% of children of divorced couples will be able to have smooth visitation with the noncustodial parent. A lack of reliable studies prevents knowing the absolute truth, but considering that judicial cases epitomize the adversarial nature of parties in a divorce, and that their decisions can be seen as legal norms, the most likely result in these types of cases is that noncustodial parents will no longer be able to meet with their children following divorce. Even if they are able to meet, once a month is an abysmal state for visitation rights.

    SOURCE: http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/1028/20PacRimLPolyJ563.pdf?sequence=4

    Divorce rate is low. Not that low. And is probably reflective of the fact that marriage rates have dropped.

    90% of divorce don't even reach court. This isn't necessarily a good thing. In the case of Japan it is more due the fact that Japanese court outcomes are predetermined - making court a futile exercise. The parent in possession of the child will virtually always get custody. The other parent will get nothing - or, at best, an unenforceable visitation order. That said, the cases that do wind up in court are the ones that need the courts to function well and protect the children.

    Also, this is a problem of the domestic Japanese system. The Foreign parents just have better means to get noticed. Recently, if you pay attention to this issue, you would see that more and more Japanese parents are speaking out.

    I doubt these are sufficient for Japan to overhaul family court which is needed if Japan is to sign the Hague Convention.

    Japan should do it for the sake of Japan. Japan has a plummeting birth rate. Japan should work to make sure that what children are being born are protected, and incentivize couples to have more children.

    What responsible person wants to have children if they know that those be arbitrarily taken away by the other parent - and there are no enforceable legal protections?

    Posted in: Court rules parents who keep estranged partners from seeing children can be fined

  • 0

    Patrick McPike

    @CH3CHO You continually misrepresent that way that the Japanese court system actually works?

    Have you any formal legal training? Have you ever been personally involved with the Japanese family court system? Have you read any of the legal essays on the topics?

    Here is a starting point for you: http://www.law-t.jp/en/publications.html

    Posted in: Court rules parents who keep estranged partners from seeing children can be fined

  • 0

    Patrick McPike

    @Ch3cho

    LOL. That is the limit of your response? What about the fact that you completely misrepresented what the UNCRC says? Who is the "activist"? It would seem to be you.

    What about the fact that Japan has violated the UNCRC for nearly 20 years?

    All these reference the same thing about article 766: http://www.japantoday.com/category/opinions/view/child-abduction-issue-should-be-key-concern-in-japan-u-s-relations

    http://www.economist.com/node/21543193 < refers to 766, though not by code number.

    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/01/04/national/child-custody-injustices-hard-to-fix/

    http://kizuna-cpr.org/news/aeraenglishtranslation

    Good luck continuing to try to defend child abuse.

    I suggest that you better educate yourself about how the Japanese court system actually functions. It is broken and does NOT protect children.

    Posted in: Cabinet approves child abduction treaty

  • 1

    Patrick McPike

    Seriously?

    Between the numbers of parents attempting to kill children, leaving them for dead (abandoning them in cars, apartments, etc.) or randomly abducting them like possessions not to be shared with the other parent, I think that Japan has a ignored epidemic of postpartum mental health issues.

    Please Japan, wake up!

    Posted in: Woman tries to kill son while husband, 3 kids sleep in same room

  • 2

    Patrick McPike

    I think that Japan should be excluded until existing treaties start to be faithfully honored. Japan doesn't have the best track record of "play by the rules".

    Posted in: Japan's ambassador urges U.S. to endorse Japan's TPP bid

  • -1

    Patrick McPike

    @hidingout

    I'm guessing that you aren't familiar with Japan is actually doing. Japan is being dishonest regarding the hague:

    http://www.internationalfamilylawfirm.com/2013/03/japans-potential-ratification-of-hague.html

    http://vimeo.com/62007021

    Posted in: Cabinet approves child abduction treaty

  • -1

    Patrick McPike

    OK. Give me a case number.

    Every case that has occurred since the law was updated. Here is one publicized example: http://dot.asahi.com/aera/2012102400024.html

    Show me where it has been applied?

    You mean UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which came into effect in Japan in 1994?

    Yes (although I also pointed out other treaties that Japan ignores - which you seem to not want to address). I note that you skip several relevant sections and articles of the UNCRC.

    It is explicitly written OK that a child is separated from a parent if the parents are living separately.

    You are skipping sections and misrepresenting what the treaty is ACTUALLY saying. Separation can occur, but not do to parental abduction (article 11) and separation due to geography means "living apart", it DOES NOT mean denial of access (articles 9 & 10).

    Absolutely. When making the return judgment, Government should take the best interest of the child into full consideration.

    How does Japan define "the best interests of the child"? Because even though the treaty, and even the Japanese court bureaucracy ( http://www.courts.go.jp/video/kodomovideo/flv/kodomobb_01.html ), recognizes that it is in the best interests of children to have a relationship with BOTH parents, the Japanese courts do not make decisions based on that fact, nor do the courts ensure that children are able to exercise that "best interests" right.

    If the child expresses his opinion that he wants to live in Japan and if the court finds it the best interest of the child, court should not force him to leave Japan.

    LOL. Very funny. 5 year old children can express their opinions? How about 2 year old children? How about children who have been abducted and brainwashed by the abductor?

    Apparently you are ignorant on the subjects of child development and child psychology.

    That said, how often are children, especially not under duress, asked by the Japanese courts? And if they say that they want to see the other parent, and the abducting parent says "no'", how does the Japanese courts deal with that? Or if the child is too young to express an independent decision? Simply put, the Japanese courts don't. The abducting parent's desire is the overwhelming factor in Japanese court rulings. How often are non-abducting parents awarded custody, even in normal domestic cases?

    How was this child's opinion taken into account? He didn't want to be disconnected from his non-abducting parent. The selfish will of the abducting parent was all that mattered: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U97dAk9C-8

    Now, as to some of the stuff that you skipped:

    The ENTIRE Article 11:

    Article 11

    1. States Parties shall take measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children abroad. (as noted by unicef this SPECIFICALLY is addressing parental abduction - http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Protection_list.pdf )

    2. To this end, States Parties shall promote the conclusion of bilateral or multilateral agreements or accession to existing agreements.

    Where are Japan's agreements? They don't exist. Japan is completely violating article 11.

    Here is the link to the ENTIRE Article 9: http://www.crin.org/docs/resources/treaties/uncrc.asp#Nine

    Take special note of Article 9 Section 3 (which you skipped):

    1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests.

    That last part, "except if it is contrary to the child's best interests" doesn't mean if the abducting parent doesn't like the idea (which is what Japan does), it means if actual harm would would be caused to the child.

    Here is another one you skipped, Article 10: http://www.crin.org/docs/resources/treaties/uncrc.asp#Ten

    Section 2. A child whose parents reside in different States shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis, save in EXCEPTIONAL circumstances personal relations and direct contacts with both parents.

    Oops. Japan violates that one too.

    And Article 8: http://www.crin.org/docs/resources/treaties/uncrc.asp#Eight

    Freedom of movement is a constitutional right.

    Nice red herring. We weren't talking about "freedom of movement", we are talking about parental abduction. Parental abduction is child abuse and a human rights violation.

    If a child moves from a slum to a suburban residential area, it is called "abduction"

    Are you just trying to deflect and avoid the actual issue? Or are you trying to equate foreign parents to "slums"?

    Perhaps you also need to study the treaty more: http://www.unicef.org/crc/indexunderstanding.html http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/GuidingPrinciples.pdf http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Protection_list.pdf

    .... And develop a better understanding of what "human rights" are.

    Posted in: Cabinet approves child abduction treaty

  • 0

    Patrick McPike

    Do not blindly believe in activists.

    Odd, that seems to be what you are. You seem to be trying to justify human rights violations that go against a treaty that Japan ratified in 1994. Which shows that you are neither interested in Japan following the law, nor in Japan protecting children:

    As stated before, Japan is violating treaties. In fact, Japan ignores it's own constitution - see Article 98 (Japan's "Supremacy Clause")

    Article 766 is in full effect.

    The law was updated in 2011 and is being ignored by the courts. Children's interests are NOT being given priority. This is currently a issue being challenged within Japan. The Diet is being petitioned to reprimand the Judiciary for disregarding the changes in the law.

    In majority of countries in the world, birthplace is irrelevant to nationality. The jurisdiction is determined by the place where the child exists. That is the general rule. Hague convention is an exception to the general rule. If Japanese court determines jurisdiction by the general rule, you cannot call it a theft.

    You are lumping several legal issues together.

    1) The birthplace and non-Japanese parent's nationality IS VERY relevant to the child's identity and nationality. Japan erasing those IS stealing the child's identity and nationality. It is also a human rights violation.

    2) Jurisdiction is not quite that cut and dry. In many cases divorce and custody proceedings were already started or determined in a foreign court. In some cases the abducting parent was even found to be "unfit" - i.e. had substance abuse problems, had a history of abusing or neglecting the child, had a history of mental issues, etc.

    3) Japan is so bad, that even foreign parents have abducted children there in order to not have to "share the child" with other, including Japanese, parents. I know of several cases where both Japanese and non-Japanese fathers abducted children away from Japanese mothers TO japan. Japan does NOT protect children - the Japanese courts protect the abductor. The system condones child abuse.

    And you continue to ignore the following facts:

    1) Japan is ignoring existing treaties - which already cover international child abduction

    2) Child abduction is a form of child abuse

    3) The system is broken. It ignores all the science on the issue of abduction, child abuse, and the damage done to children.

    4) If other countries were harboring people who broke Japanese law and then fled Japan to "avoid jurisdiction", Japan would be up in arms. Japan is being very hypocritical on this issue.

    Essentially, you are condoning behavior harmful to the child in order to defend a broken and outdated Japanese family court system.

    I guess you don't care much about protecting children.

    Posted in: Cabinet approves child abduction treaty

  • 0

    Patrick McPike

    @CH3CHO

    Meanwhile... We have dozens of document cases of jurisdictional theft by Japanese courts. We also have cases of nationality theft - the parent abducting to Japan, with the aid of the Japanese system, falsely claims that rather than the child being born in their actual native country that they were born in Japan and listing the non-abducting parent as "unknown".

    In some cases the abducting parent then even attempts to get child support from the non-abducting spouse. That comes very close to (and arguably meets) the legal definition of Human Trafficking.

    Posted in: Cabinet approves child abduction treaty

  • -1

    Patrick McPike

    @CH3CHO

    According the US Government:

    "The [US State Department] has no record of cases that have been resolved successfully through favorable Japanese court orders."

    http://travel.state.gov/abduction/country/country_5227.html

    Posted in: Cabinet approves child abduction treaty

  • -1

    Patrick McPike

    @CH3CHO

    Do you have a link to the proposed legislation? I would be interested to see it firsthand.

    Beyond that, your post is a big logical fallacy... http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

    Even assuming that your presented translation is accurate (which it may or may not be), that does not necessarily refute what the Judge said.

    He could have been referring to how DV law is actually applied in Japan. Does Japan legally recognize DV by women towards men?

    If not, then despite how the "hague related" legislation is worded, it would effectively not be recognized in the Japanese courts. *** Also, it is my understanding that in the Japanese legal system, what is written in the statute is NOT the totality of the law. When the statute is written, there is additional commentary that, while not in the written statute explains how the statute is to be interpreted. This is currently part of an ongoing issue with Article 766 of the Japan Civil Code. It was changed last year, but the MoJ is ignoring the commentary and refusing to apply the law.

    If so, does Japan actually enforce it? A law unenforced (which seems a common problem in Japanese family law - lack of enforcement of the non-status quo ) doesn't really mean much.

    Also, just because one statement may or may not be accurate does not inherently mean that all statements by the same person are inaccurate. Each statement or argument must be addressed individually. To do otherwise is just intellectual dishonesty. I assume that you have been mistaken about something before - should we therefore automatically discount everything else that you say?

    And... considering that Japan has an long and well documented track record if playing word games with, or just outright ignoring, international treaties (i.e. UNCRC, UNCAT, UNCERD, Whaling, etc), I don't see how this one will miraculously be different.

    Posted in: Cabinet approves child abduction treaty

  • 0

    Patrick McPike

    New analysis of Japan's proposed hague implementation by former Japanese Judge == more games

    • No evidence required for DV claims, and children "should not be returned" merely on the basis of allegations.

    • Designed to force foreign parents into prolonged Japaned court system, allowing abductors time to drag out decisions until after children have "accustomed to living in Japan", another reason for rejection.

    • "law orders Judges and Officers to reject the returning offers when a Japanese mother cannot maintain contact with the child (ren) after returning them to their state of habitual residence." In other words, if the abductor abducted the child from a country in which such an act was a crime; eg. most industrialized nations.

    • Basically, a husband and wife have argued at any time it will be called "Psychological Domestic Violence" which Japan cites as grounds to refuse a return. This again can be based solely on allegations.

    The paper goes on...

    It notes that basically, the law is structured in terms of "shall not return". It is structured to return as few children as possible and leaves few options but to NOT return children - Judges have no discretion.

    it goes on documenting the other games that Japan has written into the proposed law.

    http://lbpjapan.org/Newsletter/WatanabeHagueOpinion.pdf

    Posted in: Cabinet approves child abduction treaty

  • 0

    Patrick McPike

    @sourpuss

    To be clear. The pushing for "the Hague" is mainly a government to government thing. Japan signs, US State Department claims progress.

    Parents have always said that the issue is really with the Japanese domestic system. "The Hague" is meaningless without fixing the domestic system.

    Also - it is not just foreign parents. Japanese parents are calling for change. Japan needs to start protecting children... not promoting abduction.

    I suggest you read any of the dozens of legal essays on how messed up the Japanese family court system is.

    If you are vague on the issue check out this: http://www.policymic.com/articles/15499/from-the-shadows-documentary-reflects-sad-reality-of-government-sponsored-child-abduction-in-japan

    Posted in: Cabinet approves child abduction treaty

  • 3

    Patrick McPike

    All the talk about Japan signing the Hague...

    We all know that this won't really fix the problem. Japan is refusing to address any of the existing cases, and seems to be unwilling to address their broken family court system - which as we know, is the root of the problem. The Family courts condone abduction and use it to determine sole-custody (the only kind which exists in Japan).

    Japan already violates several treaties, included the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (which Japan ratified in 1994).

    Until Japan starts to protect the rights of children - the right to have a relationship with both parents, the right to not be abducted, etc - this issue will not go away.

    The Government of Japan either doesn't actually care about children OR still cannot comprehend that severing a child from a loving parent is harmful.

    Posted in: Cabinet approves child abduction treaty

View all