kitakitsune Wrote:86 of 195 countries. Just by glancing over things visually, you can see that over 75% of world population is not covered by this treaty.

Even if it was ratified by only 3 countries and those 3 countries were 3 of the smallest on the planet. It wouldn't change the legitimacy of the issue which is abduction and the loss of a parent's right to see their children.

vix86 Wrote:

kitakitsune Wrote:That might be a reason why Japan isn't getting on board this treaty right now.

If it was the real reason for not getting on board with the convention then they'd state and have done with it; because it would be good bargaining chips. But no, they've dragged their feet and grumbled at summits about "ya we need to do something, we'll look into it" and then just forget about it. Family issues are not the issues of a largely conservative parliament, least of all custody issues involved with international's. There were actually bills put on the table in the parliament but they went no where and may have completely expired by now. It's a lot like Japan trying to get other countries to care about the North Korean abductions.

I just mentioned it as one possible reason out of many. The biggest reason is of course the fact that the majority of Japanese people are not supportive of the treaty in the first place.

Japan is a democratic country that overwhelmingly awards sole custody of children to the mother. The vast majority of Japanese involved in international marriages are Japanese women to foreign men. The Hague Convention would give de-facto child custody to the foreign father in the majority of divorce cases involving Japanese citizens. There's no way a democratic Japan is going to be okay with that.

vix86 Wrote:Even if it was ratified by only 3 countries and those 3 countries were 3 of the smallest on the planet. It wouldn't change the legitimacy of the issue which is abduction and the loss of a parent's right to see their children.

You keep talking about this right to see a child as if every society in the world has it. Japanese people fundamentally disagree with you. They believe it is the right of the (responsible) mother to decide whether or not the father should be a part of the child's life.

kitakitsune Wrote:Foreigners are trying to force their western concept of parenting on Japan. [...]telling people the "correct" way to raise children.

It's not about that; it's about the fact that a Japanese woman could kidnap a kid in the U.S and run to Japan where the Japanese law system would tolerate it. The maternal custody thing could be right or not, that should be discussed in another topic. We're talking about kidnapping children. I'm not saying anything like "western way rocks, their sucks", I'm just saying that kidnapping a child and run oversea should not be tolerated by a nation like Japan.

kitakitsune Wrote:So why should Japan also make it illegal when their society does not view this action as illegal but as an inherent right of the mother?
Why should Japan be obligated as a nation to ignore the wishes of the Japanese mother, Japanese law, and Japanese social norms in order to comply with western concepts of joint custody?

So what if your parents/you/whoever you care about were killed in a country where murder is legal? Would you say: "Hey it's their legal system, their country, their tradition we should respect them. We can't tell them what is legal and what is not! My parents' fault that went there and got killed. Have you ever heard about cultural relativism! " ?
Come on...

kitakitsune Wrote:Because of the language barrier, lack of human and financial resources, and lack of familiarity with the US legal system - a Japanese woman would be at a disadvantage at US divorce court, every time.

And Japan legal system disadvantage gaijin for they got arrested if they try to see their child. If the Japanese woman had been able to maintain the child and everything she would have gone to U.S. divorce court and would have obtained the custody. Why then she choose to kidnap the child and run away instead? We both know the answer

kitakitsune Wrote:I'm not saying that a few cannot pull this off, but it's clear that the vast majority of Japanese women would be forced to return to Japan after divorce simply because they cannot find jobs.

They can't speak English [insert another language here] properly so they can kidnap children and nobody shouldn't say anything.
That is a bit of an assumption to me.

kitakitsune Wrote:Only a small percentage of Japanese mothers "cut off" their fathers from their children's lives.

Source please.

edit:typo x2

kitakitsune Wrote:There's no way a democratic Japan is going to be okay with that.

Of course not. Because that slight stereotype about being xenophobic has a sliver of truth in stuff like this. Yet, plenty of other countries around the world have put this aside and ratified it, with the foreknowledge that kids may have to be returned to other countries that may not be their own.

Quote:They believe it is the right of the (responsible) mother to decide whether or not the father should be a part of the child's life.

And we've come 360 on the cultural (moral) relativism again. Just because an entire society has come to believe something does not inherently give it mystical powers to avoid reason.
And so I'll ask again:
Assuming the father is an upstanding person,
Why on earth shouldn't he be able to see his own flesh and blood?
This isn't even a foreign vs Jp wife thing, its a father vs Jp wife. Even Japanese men have fallen victim to it.

Shakunatz Wrote:And Japan legal system disadvantage gaijin for they got arrested if they try to see their child. If the Japanese woman had been able to maintain the child and everything she would have gone to U.S. divorce court and would have obtained the custody. Why then she choose to kidnap the child and run away instead? We both know the answer

Shakunatz Wrote:They can't speak English [insert another language here] properly so they can kidnap children and nobody shouldn't say anything.
That is a bit of an assumption to me.

First off, fathers are not arrested in Japan for trying to "see" their kids. They are only arrested for attempting to take the kids away from the mother. Japanese courts award visitation rights to fathers all the time, the only problem (in rare cases) is that the police do not have an enforcement mechanism to make sure the mother does not ignore the rulings.

Also, when I talked about divorce courts in the US, I was only pointing out some of the reasons why Japanese mothers would feel the need to flee to Japan with their children. It is primarily because they know that US divorce courts would come down against them. That American husbands and their lawyers would be able to exploit their ignorance and vulnerabilities in court proceedings.

A divorce in the United States would result in a de-facto state of sole custody of the father and the mother will be forced to return to Japan in most cases.

Shakunatz Wrote:Source please.

You need a source that the sky is blue? Go ask a Japanese person.

Invasion of the Child Snatchers........that's the first thing that came to my mind when I read the title of this thread.

Ignoring what the official laws are, how is the Hague convention enacted in the US or other signing countries in practice? If the foreign parent lives in the same question of the children I assume they'd get joint custody as long as they seem respectable and have the language ability to represent themselves in court properly. But if they live in another country joint custody is impossible and the kids will be awarded to the parent living in that country by default, right?

I have *very* personal experience with this topic. I have not been given any access to my American-born sons for nearly a year and a half. I also personally know several of the parents covered in the show, and many of the both Japanese and Foreign parents that were shown protesting in the streets of Tokyo - asking for reform of the system.


Many posters are (understandably) confused about the situation.


A) This is not a Japan vs. Foreigner issue.

This is completely an issue with the broken Japanese system. However, since foreigners have better access to non-Japanese-run media the foreign parents get the vast majority of press coverage. Only recently (like in the past few months - following a recent change in the Japanese civil code, article 766, making it more socially acceptable for the media to criticize the custody system) has the Japanese media started to cover the realities of the broken court system.

Japanese parents, both mothers and fathers, who have been cut off from their children by the Japanese courts condoning abduction are supporting Japan signing the Hague treaty in hopes that it will cause domestic reform via gaiatsu.

One of the most outspoken, and productive, Parents groups in Japan was started by a Japanese mother whose Japanese husband abducted her son.

Most Japanese have no idea how the domestic Japanese custody system actually works - or, more correctly, doesn't work.

B) The Japanese courts, police, and legal system are actually ignoring the law.

Abduction *is* illegal in Japan. The law enforcement system just chooses not to get envolved in "family matters" most of the time.

Also, back in 1994 Japan ratified the UNCRC [UN Convention on the Rights of the Child], an International human-rights treaty covering protections for children. The UNCRC *already* states in article 11 that parental abduction is a crime. So Japan has been in violation of this treaty for nearly 20 years.

In addition, article 98 of the Japanese constitution includes what is generally called a "supremacy clause". It clearly states that foreign treaties are to be respected as law - something which Japan does not do. So again, the Japanese courts also ignore their own constitution.

Japan has a long and well documented history of ignoring human rights treaties - just read any of the country reports by the UN Human Rights Committee.

*also note that false DV claims are common in Japanese courts. This is because the Japanese divorce system requires blame to be assigned and no proof is required for DV claims to be excepted. False DV claims are an "easy out". One case (strictly Japanese v. Japanese) claimed that a husband not sharing pudding with his wife was a form of DV.

C) Abduction wins.

This is the simple reality of the Japanese system. It is little to do with mothers or fathers and everything to do with abduction. In cases where neither parent has abducted the child, then mothers are preferred. But when abduction has occurred, the abductor wins.

Japanese attorneys understand this and recommend abduction to their clients.


D) Japan plays victim when really it is the country attacking the sovereignty of foreign governments.

Japan expects foreigners to obey the laws of Japan, but supports Japanese citizens breaking the laws of foreign countries.

Japan criticizes N. Korea for the abduction of 17 Japanese citizens between 1977 to 1983. Yet, Japan been supporting the abduction of 1000's of children from around the world for decades - and still does.

This isn't even just parents abducting, it is family members as well. I know of several parents who are the sole living parent of their children, yet the children have been abducted by Japanese family members; and the Japanese system condones the practice.

E) The Japanese system protects abductors, it cares nothing for the "best interests of children".

The Japanese system functions to make things convenient for the abducting parent; not the children:

http://goo.gl/CU8oh: “I don't think many Japanese can stand the Western way of communication between children and their divorced parents, in which both parents participate in their children’s growing-up process,” Lawyer (and scumbag) Kensuke Onuki.

The system has no definition for what is the "best interests of the child":

http://goo.gl/2J29d: “Japanese Family Law is a misnomer in that there isn’t such a thing,” says Colin P. A. Jones, professor at Doshisha Law School in Kyoto. “There is not a statute that is called Family Law.

Japanese judges rule how they want, they don't follow the law:

Satsuki Eda, who as justice minister last year pushed through the change in the civil code, says he hopes it will lead to more generous visitation rights. It may, he also hopes, one day lead to a serious consideration of joint custody. But, he cautions, judges are conservative, finding it “very difficult to change their minds”.


F) The Hague is a treaty of procedure. However it is flawed and often ignored. Japan signing the hague will not solve the issue. Japan already ignores many treaties, including the aforementioned UNCRC. Only true reform of the Japanese domestic court system, putting the children first, can fix the issue.

G) Advocates of the the current Japanese system are *not* concerned about the children.

The "preference or mothers" as a custom is simply not true. This "preference" was a post ww2 import from the west.

Modern science clearly shows that parental abduction, and the subsequent removal of the other parent from the life of a child, is extremely harmful to the child; and has a long term negative psychological impact on children.


----

Here are several recent articles or news features on the issue:

Recent TBS News Special (In Japanese)
PART 1:

PART 2:

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news...1206080014

- Covers mainly Japanese-only cases; including a former family court judge who talks about his training, the Japanese court mindset, and how he understood from first-hand experience that abduction was the only possible solution.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/adv/chuo/opinion/20120528.htm (Japanese Version)
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/adv/chuo/dy/opi...120611.htm (English Version)

- Article Hague Convention Ratification and Post-Divorce Parent-Child Law - Takao Tanase
Professor, Chuo Law School, Chuo University Area of Specialization: Sociology of Law
"In Japanese court practices, 'moving away with a child' [*note: common euphemistic phrase used in Japan for parental abduction] in a process leading to divorce is quietly condoned and not called abduction."
"Children experience extreme trauma if they are suddenly removed for no apparent reason from a parent who dotes on them. The loss of a fundamental sense of trust can even scar them for the rest of their lives."


http://www.economist.com/node/21543193

- Covers mainly Japanese-only cases. Points out that the first case (which involved a high-ranking Japanese bureaucrat whose wife abducted his daughter) to attempt to use the new Japanese civil-code statute, had the court choose to ignore the change to Japanese law.

http://accjjournal.com/left-behind/

- Article highlighting cases of Japanese parents - one mother; one father.

- http://wp.me/p1VfUU-1D

Blog post referencing several legal articles discussing the disfunction of the Japanese custody system. "only about 2.6% of the 245,000 children [annually] affected by divorce [in Japan] will be allowed visitation." - Professor TANASE Takeo (J.D. Tokyo Law Univesity; PhD in Sociology from Harvard).

http://wp.me/p1VfUU-2U

-A Look at the Social-Marital Issues in Japan, and the impact they have in the decline of modern Japan.

- http://cargocollective.com/ProjectPhotog...n-progress

Bilingual photo documentation of many parents' (both Japanese and non-Japanese) stories

Shakunatz Wrote:

kitakitsune Wrote:So why should Japan also make it illegal when their society does not view this action as illegal but as an inherent right of the mother?
Why should Japan be obligated as a nation to ignore the wishes of the Japanese mother, Japanese law, and Japanese social norms in order to comply with western concepts of joint custody?

So what if your parents/you/whoever you care about were killed in a country where murder is legal? Would you say: "Hey it's their legal system, their country, their tradition we should respect them. We can't tell them what is legal and what is not! My parents' fault that went there and got killed. Have you ever heard about cultural relativism! " ?
Come on...

I'd be mad, but I'd be mad at my parents/self/whoever if they made the idiotic decisions to go to the god forsaken country where murder was legal.

I think honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with this, except for the fact it happened on American soil.

If you are going to have kids in America, you should respect American laws. If you're going to have kids in Japan, respect Japanese laws. The kids were born in America, so allowing the mother to simply move back to Japan where the laws are different is absurd.

If Japan supports breaking the laws of other countries, yet wants other countries to respect its laws, I don't know what to do.

Nobody deserves to have this happen...
With that said, some people like to drive drunk (i.e. no Japanese skills) and for those people I have no sympathy if you crash and burn. You should have seen it coming.
To all the rest, my heart goes out to them. It's a very shitty situation and one I cannot even imagine having to go through.

mcpike Wrote:I have *very* personal experience with this topic. I have not been given any access to my American-born sons for nearly a year and a half. I also personally know several of the parents covered in the show, and many of the both Japanese and Foreign parents that were shown protesting in the streets of Tokyo - asking for reform of the system.

Best of luck to you and all those other parents you know who are fighting to see their kids!!!!!!!!!!

I hope your partner will speak to you again and try coming to some kind of arrangement.

There aren't many things that could be worse for a parent than being cut off like that... i can only imagine.

Thanks for the interesting links, too. I haven't read them all yet, but one of the things i found really surprising was that you said that the cases where the grandparents abduct the kids aren't uncommon. I kinda assumed that must be a one off crazy thing when i watched that 1st documentary.

Also, if the Japanese police are in violation of both their own laws and international law, isn't there a higher court you could take the case to?

IceCream Wrote:Best of luck to you and all those other parents you know who are fighting to see their kids!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks! We're all fighting for productive change - change which will protect children.

IceCream Wrote:I hope your partner will speak to you again and try coming to some kind of arrangement.

Not likely. The way that the system is setup, it rewards denial of communication.

Many abducting parents have emotional/mental issues - hence the initial abduction.

On top of that, the abductors have built a new reality which involved vilifying the non-abducting parent: to the children, neighbors, their family, etc. From their view, if the other parent is allowed to re-enter the picture, those lies and the facade they have built could collapse and they would be exposed.

Abduction is largely about control.

IceCream Wrote:There aren't many things that could be worse for a parent than being cut off like that... i can only imagine.

It is definitely hard on us parents... but the children are the real victims. From their point of view - One day they have two loving parents in their life; the next they have only one. And that one has taken complete control, denies the child the ability to continue a relationship with the other parent, and generally tells the child negative things (like: "the other parent doesn't love you", "the other parent didn't want you", etc). It is extremely hard on children. The children get no voice, they are victim to the will of the abductor - it is very much like brainwashing. There is a lot of research on this issue, the mental issues common with parental abductors, and the long term negative impact on the children.

IceCream Wrote:Thanks for the interesting links, too. I haven't read them all yet, but one of the things i found really surprising was that you said that the cases where the grandparents abduct the kids aren't uncommon. I kinda assumed that must be a one off crazy thing when i watched that 1st documentary.

Unfortunately no. As you saw in the "Sayonara Baby" special - even the Japanese father was stuck when wanting to get the child back from *his* own mother (the child's Japanese grandmother).

IceCream Wrote:Also, if the Japanese police are in violation of both their own laws and international law, isn't there a higher court you could take the case to?

Unfortunately no. International law is a farce. The UNCRC is *supposed* to be legally binding, but there is no enforcement agency.

And the Japanese courts, through their rulings, determine which laws they will follow; and which they will ignore.

The simple, and depressing, truth is... that Japan doesn't really have a "rule of law" system. There are some very interesting legal articles that describe the process of judge recruitment in Japan. Basically, they are recruited directly from law school (ie. they don't actually practice law first) and are put through a "litmus test" to ensure that they won't "rock the boat".

Right now the biggest ally that we have is the fact that it is so common, and marriage in Japan is crumbling so much, that it has been impacting people in the government and legal professions at an ever increasing rate.... so they are becoming more motivated to help bring change.

kitakitsune Wrote:

kitakitsune Wrote:Only a small percentage of Japanese mothers "cut off" their fathers from their children's lives.

Shakunatz Wrote:Source please.

You need a source that the sky is blue? Go ask a Japanese person.

If some passers-by believe something to be true then...what? "Ask a Japanese person" is not a reliable (official / statistical / whatever) source and probably the one of the most biased, when it comes to something related to their country / their society.

,

kitakitsune Wrote:Only a small percentage of Japanese mothers "cut off" their fathers from their children's lives.

Shakunatz Wrote:Source please.

kitakitsune Wrote:You need a source that the sky is blue? Go ask a Japanese person.

kitakitsune is simply wrong.

According the the very highly respected Japanese Law Professor (and Harvard PhD sociologist) TANASE Takao, "only about 2.6% of the 245,000 children affected by divorce [in Japan annually] will be allowed visitation." SOURCE: DIVORCE AND THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD: DISPUTES OVER VISITATION AND THE JAPANESE FAMILY COURTS, By Takao Tanase (Translated by Matthew J. McCauley) http://goo.gl/6ikmG

To simplify it: Out of 245,000 children who's parent's are divorced in Japan annually ONLY about 6300 children will be allowed to maintain some level of contact with their "non-custodial parent". The remaining 238,700 children have one parent unceremoniously cut completely and suddenly from their life - often being punished, either emotionally or physically, by the "custodial parent" if they ask to continue to see the removed parent.

Japan is fully aware that this practice of abduction and lack of visitation is harmful to children, they just refuse to reform their system - which benefits the judicial bureaucracy; and continues to promote child abduction and emotional abuse.
http://www.courts.go.jp/video/kodomo_vid...bb_01.html

Thanks mcpike for all the informative posts. Thats truly depressing to hear that you can't see your son. I too hope it works out for you somehow. Unfortunately I somehow doubt that Japanese court is going to come and save the day. Considering how close this issue is to you I'm sure you already know this, but when the Hague Convention bill was on the floor some months ago, the media had mentioned that a stipulation for passing it would be to basically grant asylum to all current abduction cases. So the convention could only be used for future cases. While your case may not be int'l abduction, I suspect any future laws to cover domestic abduction would also have the same kind of stipulation.

Personally, I have little faith in Japan though. This is a country that's been in near 30 years of population decline and the politicians have been incapable of figuring out how to fix it. I fear that Japan probably won't change until its forced to accept a larger immigrant population in order to support the infrastructure. That said, there's still lots about Japan I love--cognitive dissonance and all.

Looks like Japan has just ratified the Hague convention:
http://japandailypress.com/japanese-parl...ty-2229284