national

Couple in 20s file suit over 6-month remarriage ban for women

129 Comments

A couple in their 20s, who have a five-month-old son, have filed a suit with the Tokyo District Court against the Japanese government, challenging the constitutionality of Article 733 of the Civil Code which prohibits only women from remarrying within six months after getting a divorce.

The couple, who are from Shizuoka Prefecture, said in their suit that they were not allowed to register their marriage in July because it was only two months after the woman divorced her previous husband, Sankei Shimbun reported. Furthermore, the couple have not been allowed to register their son's birth.

According to the plaintiffs, the two met in 2013 when the woman was living separately from her ex-husband. Her son was born in May which was right before she was legally granted the divorce. In such cases, the civil law still presumes the child's father to be the woman's ex-husband.

The plaintiffs are demanding 3 million yen in compensation for not being able to legally marry and not be able to register the boy as their child, Sankei reported.

The topic has been a contentious one for many years and the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments challenging the constitutionality of Article 733 as well as Article 750 which mandates that married couples choose one surname.

The issue has been in the spotlight since an Okayama woman, who is in her 20s, filed a suit with the Okayama District Court and high court two years ago, challenging the constitutionality of the two articles. However, both courts deemed that the two laws were not in violation of the constitution, ruling that the legislation helped to prevent paternity disputes and therefore had a reasonable aim. As such, the courts declared that an examination of its constitutionality was not necessary.

The Supreme Court's Grand Bench of all 15 judges will hear the case, beginning Nov 4. It will be the first time the Supreme Court has agreed to pass judgement on such issues.

The plaintiff, who lives in Soja, Okayama Prefecture, was divorced in March 2008 and was forced to wait until October of the same year to marry her current husband. She sued for 1.65 million yen in damages, arguing the Civil Code is discriminatory because the same articles do not apply to men.

One exception to the rule is when a woman is pregnant before the divorce. Under this condition, she can remarry after the birth of a child. The law was intended to reduce the occurrence of paternity disputes, but has been criticized for restricting the behavior of women and not men.

The lawsuit was filed after the woman had a daughter with her current husband but the Soja local government did not recognize the child as being the offspring of her current husband because she had her child within 300 days of getting divorced.

According to Article 772 of the Civil Code, the child was still considered the legitimate offspring of the ex-husband who allegedly abused her. As a result, the new couple were unable to register their daughter’s birth.

Regarding surnames, there are provisions in the Civil Code that state a married couple must use a single surname -- either the husband's or the wife's. In 1996, a legislative council of the Ministry of Justice proposed creating a system in which married women or men can have the choice to keep their own surnames, but no amendments were ever made to the Civil Code.

© Japan Today

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

129 Comments
Login to comment

Hope this ends in more equal and reasonable laws.

We can easily and fairly quickly determine paternity these days.

The surname thing seems its over due for a change too.

16 ( +18 / -2 )

Good luck to the plaintiffs, both of those rules (and the Okayama court rulings) are just plain ludicrous.

21 ( +22 / -2 )

From the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (motto: "One face for Japan, another for the world") website:

As Prime Minister Shinzo Abe clearly stated in his address at the Sixty-Eighth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations on 26 September, 2013, the Government of Japan will cultivate the power of women ... with the belief that creating "a society in which women shine" will bring vigor to the world.

11 ( +13 / -2 )

Japan can be so god damned primitive!

Get with the 20th century at least Japan!!! Its clearly too much to make the leap to the 21st century!

13 ( +16 / -3 )

Prehistoric laws LOL!!!

11 ( +14 / -3 )

However, both courts deemed that the two laws were not in violation of the constitution, ruling that the legislation helped to prevent paternity disputes and therefore had a reasonable aim.

Never heard of DNA tests?

16 ( +19 / -3 )

And the gerontocracy wonders why birth rates are plummeting

12 ( +14 / -2 )

Good! Hope they win. Don't think they will, sinc the courts protect the system, but it's a start.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

As usual, you are all spot on. And Japan wants to call itself a modern country and sit at the same table as the Europe, North America and OZ, and NZ?? They are miles behind!! Hell, these kind of rulings would be shameful in the Middle East! I've lived in Middle Eastern countries where the marriage and divorce laws are more progressive than Japan. How can this even be justified?? If they really want to prohibit paternity disputes, then the law should apply to BOTH men and women or apply to neither. But the law should not be allowed to tell someone who or when they can get married.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

n such cases, the civil law still presumes the child’s father to be the woman’s ex-husband< Great logic!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I wonder how many people are aware that many of the codes on the books in Japan today were written during the Meiji era and with little change are still in effect today. The code that this dispute is about was initially written in something like 1890.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

The remarriage (period) ban was abolished in Germany in 1998, France in 2004 and South Korea in 2005.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

The bans of matrimony...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Never heard of DNA tests?

Which can be considered an invasion of privacy and will also cost cash. Frankly, the problem of paternity is a real one and the restrictions are not severe.

Say what you like about Japan's treatment of women in general but there are really bigger, better fish to fry than this.

-21 ( +1 / -22 )

The remarriage (period) ban was abolished in Germany in 1998, France in 2004 and South Korea in 2005.

Considering that France is notorious for restricting paternity tests, perhaps they should still have that law in place.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Say what you like about Japan's treatment of women in general but there are really bigger, better fish to fry than this.

Ahh, so we just just forget about injustices because there are bigger injustices.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Which can be considered an invasion of privacy and will also cost cash. Frankly, the problem of paternity is a real one and the restrictions are not severe. Say what you like about Japan's treatment of women in general but there are really bigger, better fish to fry than this.

Invasion of privacy? Trying to find the paternity of a child is in the child's and parents best interests privacy be damned.

Archaic thinking, just like the law. The restrictions ARE severe because they do not include men. Oh and from a woman's point of view your thoughts are sexist as hell I would bet. (oh my point of view too and I am not a woman, you come across as being the type of guy that thinks it's ok for guys to get what they want but women be damned.)

The same as saying screw the women, they dont count.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

Ha ha! How crazy is this? She has been divorced for three months, but has a five month old done to another guy. Promiscuous bunch, aren't they?

-14 ( +5 / -19 )

She has been divorced for three months, but has a five month old done to another guy.

So?

Promiscuous bunch, aren't they?

So?

8 ( +14 / -6 )

@Kazuaki Shimazaki,

Say what you like about Japan's treatment of women in general but there are really bigger, better fish to fry than this.

Excuse me for being rude, but are you kidding me?!??!?!

So are you referring to the remarriage provision inequality? The assumption of paternity of a child? Or both?

In either case, your statement is ridiculous.

On the remarriage provision, it is about fundamental equality in one of the most basic areas of human relationships. It is just offensive to apply thinking that is archaic, sexist and just downright ignorant.

On the paternity question, this is even more abhorrent. So, the child of the couple cannot have his biological father legally recognised. And, in fact, a man who is NOT his biological father IS legally recognised as his father. You're Japanese. You know EXACTLY the implications in Japan for this child growing up. It complicates EVERYTHING in a country where family records play such a huge role in societal structure. And it is COMPLETELY unnecessary. Change the law, allow all parties (mother, ex-husband, biological) to stipulate the biological father and, barring that, a DNA test. Which does not cost that much money and that I guarantee you that the mother and new partner/biological husband would gladly pay for.

I can't believe this is even a discussion. What backwards laws in Japan and it really astounds me that anyone would try to defend it.

13 ( +16 / -3 )

@Kazuaki Shimazaki

Taking this case as an example, if the baby is indeed the child of the woman's new partner, who by the way wants the baby to be declared his, DNA testing of the child and that man would be sufficient. How would that be invading anyone's privacy?

If that testing were to show the new partner is not the father, and the previous partner then had to , perhaps unwillingly, undergo testing, I would agree it could be an invasion of privacy. But in the majority of these types of cases the father is not the previous partner so it shouldn't be much of a worry.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Ha ha! How crazy is this? She has been divorced for three months, but has a five month old done to another guy. Promiscuous bunch, aren't they?

How many others here like you have difficulty in reading all the way through an article before commenting?

7 ( +9 / -2 )

This law has seriously affected a friend of mine.

He was dating a Japanese model who was married to a Japanese guy. He wanted her to divorce her husband and marry him, mostly for love but also because of his visa situation. The woman was dragging her feet getting divorced because she was concerned her vindictive husband would expose sordid details of her past. By the time she DID get divorced, my friend had ~5 months left before his visa expired...not enough time for her to re-marry him.

So he married one of his side-pieces for a visa (which he was honest about), a much younger girl, who he is not in love with at all. They have a pretty miserable relationship. His actual lover (the now-divorced model) got upset because he married someone else, slept around a bunch, and eventually got knocked up by another Japanese guy, who she subsequently married.

Arguably, all that drama could have been avoided if the model could have legally married my friend immediately after her divorce.

-17 ( +1 / -18 )

-Kazuaki Which can be considered an invasion of privacy and will also cost cash. Frankly, the problem of paternity is a real one and the restrictions are not severe. Say what you like about Japan's treatment of women in general but there are really bigger, better fish to fry than this.

I don't understand how it's an invasion of privacy to want to legally cement the paternity of your child? And turning a blind eye to one injustice just because there are other injustices out there is really short sighted. Just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean its not important.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Wish the government would separate the issue of remarriage and registration of a newborn. It makes sense to a certain point that women are not allowed to remarry 6 months after divorce but when a baby is born, the baby should be registered no matter what even if it requires DNA test or some other form or medical test that proves the new husband is the father.

If the baby isn't registered, he/she cannot be enrolled in the "ninka" hoikuen (government run daycare) and the parents cannot receive child care support (jido teate) and the baby has no health care (they pay 100% when baby goes to the doctor's?). This is beyond ridiculous.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

both courts deemed that the two laws were not in violation of the constitution, ruling that the legislation helped to prevent paternity disputes and therefore had a reasonable aim.

Japanese courts make these completely absurd rulings so often I wonder if the judges can even read and understand Japanese. Whether or not the laws have "reasonable aims" is beside the point: they are still in violation of the constitution and that overrides everything else.

The ridiculous laws clearly do not prevent paternity disputes, as the case cited in the article demonstrates.

I think the couple should also pursue the ex-husband / non-father for child maintenance, just to highlight the stupidity of the Japanese "justice" system.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

What backwards laws in Japan and it really astounds me that anyone would try to defend it.

Why do you believe DNA test so much? Suppose a DNA test does not indicate either of the two men, what are you going to do? Throw the baby away?

Based on the current law, which you call backwards, still indicate the husband is the father and the baby still has father

Based on the current law, you can file a law suit for recognition of father different from the husband if you want.

The laws assumes woman is supposed to have a child of her husband, which is nothing wrong on the law. If the woman had a child of another man, is it such a big deal to have some trouble like a law suit?

-14 ( +2 / -16 )

This story and many others similar to it proves that Japan is still run by the 'old boys club' and until things change in wholesale fashion, Japan will never be truly a fair place for all sexes.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Why is this stupid law only applied to women? It's hard to believe that a modern country has such archaic laws in the 21st century.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Tina, what if you were the mother of that five year-old child? Would you still see your beloved country's legal system as infallible, or would you challenge it?

It's not unpatriotic to question laws that discriminate against your fellow countrywomen.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

So register the kid under the first fathers name and make him pay up until age 20, then the kid can legally change his name to the real father's name.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

So, what is the rule if a married man fathers a child with his unmarried bit on the side? Can the childs birth not be registered?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The whole koseki system is riddled with outdated nonsense like this and needs to be scrapped.

Good luck to them in their case!

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Why do you believe DNA test so much?

What a stupid question. Because they prove paternity.

Suppose a DNA test does not indicate either of the two men, what are you going to do?

Not require either of the men to register paternity.

Based on the current law, which you call backwards, still indicate the husband is the father and the baby still has father

But it's not the baby's real father, and it requires a man who isn't the father to take responsibility for a child that isn't his own. That's backwards.

13 ( +14 / -1 )

Ha ha! How crazy is this? She has been divorced for three months, but has a five month old done to another guy. Promiscuous bunch, aren't they?

The article says they first met in 2013. Inattentive, reactionary bunch, aren't we?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Not require either of the men to register paternity.

Then what are you going to do with the baby of your wife who you have responsiblity for?

it requires a man who isn't the father to take responsibility for a child that isn't his own.

You can file a law suit for recognition of no father-child relationship

what if you were the mother of that five year-old child? Would you still see your beloved country's legal system as infallible, or would you challenge it?

No, this law is well known and people should act according to the law. If I were in her position, I wouldn't challenge it. I would accept any inconvinience.

-15 ( +1 / -16 )

Then what are you going to do with the baby of your wife who you have responsiblity for?

That's between the guy and his wife.

You can file a law suit for recognition of no father-child relationship

Shouldn't have to if it's not his child in the first place.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

That's between the guy and his wife.

no, if it were your wife who's baby is from unknown man not you not her present boyfriend, what would you do with the baby? At least the law says you are the father. Isn't it nice from the baby's perspective?

Shouldn't have to if it's not his child in the first place.

But the law has positive side too that's why lasted so long, time tested.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

if it were your wife who's baby is from unknown man not you not her present boyfriend, what would you do with the baby? At least the law says you are the father. Isn't it nice from the baby's perspective?

No, it's not nice from the baby's perspective. What if the present boyfriend is abusive to the baby out of bitterness at being forced to be father to a baby that is not his? And if the man is not the father of the baby, then why should the baby's rights take priority over the man? Sorry Tina, but you've failed in logic.

But the law has positive side too that's why lasted so long, time tested.

No, it doesn't. The law is straight up wrong in this case.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

@tinawatanabe

If a woman has a baby that is not the child of the first husband nor subsequent partner one would think she would have an idea as to the identity of the actual father. Unless of course she had been raped by a complete stranger or had consensual sex with an extreme number of men within a short period of time (around the time she became pregnant). It might be that the current partner lives her and the child enough to raise another man's child but no one should be forced into that. And the child should have the right to know ,to the extent possible) who it's actual father is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You got me wrong, Stranger. If your wife lives with you and had several short period boyfriends, with whom she has no contact and from one of who she had a baby. Isn't the law nice for the baby to have designated father, you? You have the responsibility for your wife, why not for her spawn too?

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

If your wife lives with you and had several short period boyfriends, with whom she has no contact and from one of who she had a baby. Isn't the law nice for the baby to have designated father, you?

No - the baby has the right to know who his real father is. And the father has the right to not have to have responsibility for a kid he didn't father.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@tinawatanabe

You have the responsibility for your wife, why not for her spawn too?

It's totally unreasonable to expect a male to unwillingly shoulder an economic burden for an offspring that is not his genetic progeny.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Ha ha! How crazy is this? She has been divorced for three months, but has a five month old done to another guy. Promiscuous bunch, aren't they?

It's not your place to judge! Especially people and circumstances you don't know. Judging women's sexuality or promiscuity is as archaic as this law preventing these two from tying the knot, in my book.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

What's to stop a couple leaving Japan and marrying abroad?

Nothing.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nothing.....

Nothing other than money, jobs, timing, legality in other countries of two non-citizens getting married, etc...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

No, this law is well known and people should act according to the law. If I were in her position, I wouldn't challenge it. I would accept any inconvinience.

Blind unquestioning acceptance of authority. Confucianism on steroids? A fascist wet dream?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

(n Japanese society, the child will be registered as shoshi in Koseki and discrimination follows entire chiilds life whenvever koseki summary is needed srch as school entrance, job application.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Why is this woman jumping from one marriage to another in such a short time? I think this Article protects Japanese values, and maybe should be extended to 5 years!

-14 ( +0 / -14 )

Why is this woman jumping from one marriage to another in such a short time?

Because.

And that's all the answer you deserve, since it's none of your business.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

I wish people would comment on here based on some factor other than their passport. Two extreme cases in particular.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think this Article protects Japanese values

A brothel culture where absolutely anything (despite the pretence) goes?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Seems like it might be time for this antiquated law to be overturned.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@1glennOCT. 16, 2015 - 07:44PM JST Seems like it might be time for this antiquated law to be overturned.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

There is fairly nre law. It is illedak to namr nrwborm Pokemon

And 2 1945 laws kiss in publiv and hug in pun;ic.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Aly Rustom

As usual, you are all spot on. And Japan wants to call itself a modern country and sit at the same table as the Europe, North America and OZ, and NZ??

It's fascinating that people are so intent on jumping with both feet into this particular cowpat again and again and again. Europe is a disparate collection of countries and cultures. Generalizations based on assumption are rarely wise, especially for those who are lightly travelled and light on local knowledge.

There are certainly European countries with measures like this: in Italy, a divorced or widowed woman cannot marry for 300 days. In Portugal a divorced man has to wait 180 days, a woman for 300 days. In Ireland, a couple (single, divorced or widowed) has to give 3 months' notice to the registrar, etc.

Does that leave Europe with a seat at the table?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Educator60

no one should be forced into that. And the child should have the right to know ,to the extent possible) who it's actual father is.

No one is forced into that. You are assumed father until proved otherwise in court. This law is not discrimination against women but to protect her and the baby by binding the husband until six months after the devorce. And the child have every right to anything.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Blind unquestioning acceptance of authority. Confucianism on steroids? A fascist wet dream?

No. I think this law is very simple, easy to understand, a reasonable law. The 6 months period could be shortened so Japan is now considering the possiblility.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I think this law is very simple, easy to understand, a reasonable law

and failure to obey is tantamount to sexcrime

but then,

The 6 months period could be shortened so Japan is now considering the possiblility

I thought the lady was not for turning, Tina. Why the volte face?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I think this Article protects Japanese values

Japanese laws are blatantly sexist, and even the PM is pushing for more women in the workplace and in higher management and yet someone actually thinks that a law like this protects Japanese values?

A woman's choice is her own, who she chooses to sleep with or marry is no one's business but her own.

No. I think this law is very simple, easy to understand, a reasonable law. The 6 months period could be shortened so Japan is now considering the possiblility.

I find it almost impossible to believe that a woman would agree with a sexist law. There is no joint custody in Japan, and yet you would have the divorced husband pay child support for a child that isnt his, and give a child that is not even blood related the divorced husbands name? Warped sense of what "reasonable" is!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@tinawatanabe

In the majority of cases the woman would know who the father is. If she knows it is not the legal husband why should he be forced into a costly, unnecessary lawsuit when the matter could be easily taken care of by some simple paperwork? Mind you I am not recommending that women get pregnant while still married to someone else. But life isn't always simple and the ones to potentially suffer the most due to outdated procedures are the innocent children.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Educator60

If husband and wife agreed that the baby is not husband's, then you file for a mediation for court approval.

the ones to potentially suffer the most due to outdated procedures are the innocent children.

As I wrote in above posts, I think most children benefit from this law. I can not imagine a better system. How is it in US?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If husband and wife agreed that the baby is not husband's, then you file for a mediation for court approval.

They shouldn't need to. It's ridiculous to assume a man who is not the father is the father.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@tinawatanabe

Forgot to mention, you said the law is not discrimination but to protect the wife and baby by binding the husband for six months.

That makes sense only in a case such as when a husband tosses out a pregnant wife and gives her and the child no support. But it's no protection at all, and rather a burden, if the wife is carrying the child of another man. And especially if the couple have been separated/had no sexual relations for some time before the divorce, it's just plain senseless. If the woman has had sex with both men during the time she became pregnant (or if the husband doesn't believe he is or isn't the father) then it can still be quickly cleared up with a simple test and lawsuits avoided. Do you really want to go the American way of a lawsuit for everything?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

As I wrote in above posts, I think most children benefit from this law. I can not imagine a better system. How is it in US?

How in the world can a child benefit from being told that their biological father, who is married to their mother, is by law a child of another man who had nothing to do with them?

I mean how can you say with a straight face that this child BENEFITS from a situation like this? It's ludicrous.

Doesn't matter what it is in the US, or any other country for that matter, this is about here.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

it can still be quickly cleared up with a simple test and lawsuits avoided.

yes, I said at a mediation. Even it is clear, court has to confirm it because of the important nature. You can't just decide with your wife that the baby is somebody else's. The court has to make sure if it is the case.

how can you say with a straight face that this child BENEFITS from a situation like this?

the baby can have father regardless of what trouble its parents have, to name one.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Tina- again with the same strange logic. You said this law 'protects' the baby, but in both cases, the children are left unregistered. Having no Koseki could ruin the child's life. I hardly see this as protecting the child.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I have no idea why comments on this issue are always so hysterical. Is 6 months really such a huge inconvenience for something as significant as marriage? If men were given the same 6 month waiting requirement in the name of equality, would people stop crying sexism? It seems to me that laws like this were simply based on pragmatic thinking at a time where reliable paternity tests didn't exist. Now that they do, this requirement may not be necessary anymore, but I feel it's rather unfair to call it sexist. Between an ugly paternity dispute and waiting 6 months, I think most people would choose the 6 month wait.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

First, custom is not culture. When a child is born or adopted in a family, he/she will be registered in family archive Koseki Touhon in 4 types. Jisshi, Youshi, Shoshi and shiseiji. When a person applies to college or a job, summery of family registration is required. On top of your name your born status displays. In this case, child will be treated as 4th type to be discriminated for entire life in Japan. Don't blame her She knows Japanese custom.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Jonaehan: I am too to old to talk this but Don't you think everyone has different sex life that you can't force your kind of sex life into law?
2 ( +2 / -0 )

Toshiko has it correct --- I can see the issue of fighting this in the courts is related to the registration which is not private and causes discrimination with regards to college work, marriage etc. The couple is being prevented to have the correct data on Koseki Touhon.

I feel it is important for women in Japan to have the choice to keep their family name when married. My married friends in Taiwan have this arrangement. It seems natural to them because the women has an independent personality and comes from a very wonderful family. I can understand that she wants to keep this connection in her mind and create a independently together marriage.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey Japan... Time to realize it's 2015, and also women are equal to men. While your at it, fully legalize and recognize equal rights for same sex couples and transgender.....COMPLETELY... Afterall we DO pay for your salary with our hard earned TAX.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not disputing the unfairness of the law but take issue with Japan being portrayed as in some way backwards compared to other "developed" nations. Try getting an amicable divorce in somewhere like the UK and it will still take you over a year and a load in legal fees. Both parites agree in Japan and it's a simple trip to the ward office. You can divorce in minutes. I got the shomei sho (optional) for 200 yen.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

There are certainly European countries with measures like this: in Italy, a divorced or widowed woman cannot marry for 300 days. In Portugal a divorced man has to wait 180 days, a woman for 300 days. In Ireland, a couple (single, divorced or widowed) has to give 3 months' notice to the registrar, etc.

While this is off topic here there is a reasonable (while archaic too) explanation for these from Europe. These laws were created and backed by the Catholic church and are in place because of religion.

Japan is a secular society and none of it's laws are based or have roots in any religion. It's a law created to keep the wife or woman subservient, and limit a woman's freedom. Created in a time when that was the norm, back in the late 1800's.

I can tell you some horror stories regarding how women here in Okinawa were treated during that time period and up until after WWII that would make you feel sick. Related to issues not only of divorce but after a woman's husband died. Many times the woman was treated like trash and had no right to say anything.

It's wrong, 100% wrong, if she loses her case maybe she should take it to the UN and complain about "human rights" abuses within Japan!

And it is very much a human rights issue, women's rights!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Educator60 at Oct. 16, 2015 - 03:08PM JST

What? The baby doesn't come into this? It may be good for him, but he did not give informed consent! The idea of people just taking your private data on the pretext it is good for you must be resisted.

Men and women won't be equal in marriage as long as there is this complication called kids. Setting a block to avoid such complications is defensible.

The argument is a bit like some 17-year old suing because he was not allowed to vote. This is ageism. The suitability for voting should be determined through some kind of intelligence or political awareness test, not by a hard-line law block.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Tina- again with the same strange logic. You said this law 'protects' the baby, but in both cases, the children are left unregistered. Having no Koseki could ruin the child's life. I hardly see this as protecting the child.

This is an exceptional case. They just have to go to court to prove who is the father. But because of this law, the majority of mothers and children can live in peace.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Under this ruling The ex of the women has a legal right to be a parent of the child. This the the ex is not the genetic father. But is the legal father of the child because the women became impregnated during their marriage. Any court would deem the genetic father has not fit to a parent of the child because he committed a social taboo. Having unprotective sex with a married women would be deem by any has a irresponsible act by the Family law. So not being suitable as the father of the child. That is if the Ex want to be the Parent of the child. He would win in this case. Plus he also has the right to be compensated by the genetic father for raising the child.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What? The baby doesn't come into this? It may be good for him, but he did not give informed consent! The idea of people just taking your private data on the pretext it is good for you must be resisted.

The baby has no rights as you are asserting here and BOTH you and TIna are sidestepping the issue of the woman's rights, which are paramount, meaning they come first! The law is sexist and infringes on her freedoms

There is no logic in the world that agrees with the premise that the non-biological father must be made to accept a child that is not his.

Oh wait there is, it's Japan.

But because of this law, the majority of mothers and children can live in peace.

Oh really? Then why is she going to court? And why is there even one child in Japan living here thinking they are illegitimate because of a law that makes no sense in the 21st Century?

Oh and you as well continue to sidestep the issue of women's rights, which says quite a bit about you as a woman and none too good either.

Like it or not there are plenty of people here who get married purely because the woman got pregnant, and the fear of having that child being branded as a bastard.

There are plenty of easy solutions but the system here always seems to take the hard way, because it's against philosophical change. Same as you an Kazuaki.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

who came first the chicken or the egg?

In Japan the answer would have to be "a fish"!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

There is no logic in the world that agrees with the premise that the non-biological father must be made to accept a child that is not his.

This law does not say that. The law only says that the husband is assumed father of his wife's baby. Isn't that what we all assume? If we saw a friend become pregnant, we assume her husband would be the father.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@YubaruOCT. 17, 2015 - 01:02PM JST

The baby has no rights

Babies are human individuals. They enjoy all the inalienable rights we enjoy. That you choose to deny this does not speak well of you.

as you are asserting here and BOTH you and TIna are sidestepping the issue of the woman's rights, which are paramount, meaning they come first! The law is sexist and infringes on her freedoms

Women's rights are important I'll agree, but to say they are paramount means they override every other consideration, including considerations you agree to be valid. Do you mean to say that?

There is no logic in the world that agrees with the premise that the non-biological father must be made to accept a child that is not his.

Don't worry, if you don't want to, there is always Article 774: "Under the circumstances described in Article 772, a husband may rebut the presumption of the child in wedlock."

Oh really? Then why is she going to court? And why is there even one child in Japan living here thinking they are illegitimate because of a law that makes no sense in the 21st Century?

She said MOST, OK? She does not deny the possibility of leakers. I know you don't like what she's saying but try to comprehend all parts before replying.

There are plenty of easy solutions but the system here always seems to take the hard way, because it's against philosophical change. Same as you an Kazuaki.

Here's an easy solution - you just wait a few months. Really, NO ONE should be marrying or trying to produce new kids within a few months of their divorce.

For this particular problem, the kid was born WHILE the women was still technically in wedlock. Her divorce papers did not arrive yet even when the kid got pumped out, so technically she's conducting adultery and like it or not that kid is a "shiseishi" - it might be dishonorable and may harm the kid's chances for life through no fault of his own, but it is also the truth. It is not a punishable crime in Japan IIRC, but a rule saying if the man wants that kid it's his, considering the circumstances, this seems fair.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

This law does not say that. The law only says that the husband is assumed father of his wife's baby. Isn't that what we all assume? If we saw a friend become pregnant, we assume her husband would be the father.

Yes it does, you just choose to ignore it. Also once again you miss HER rights.

Here's an easy solution - you just wait a few months. Really, NO ONE should be marrying or trying to produce new kids within a few months of their divorce.

Did you read the article? They were separated and the divorce became final some time afterwards.

Did someone die and make you God that can can decide to tell anyone what they should or should not do?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Old law. When rumored Showa Emperor rejected Govt and right wing demand to separate Crown Prince and Miss Michiko Shoda, entire Japan was excited. Micchi Boom, and we said only Crown Prince marry with love in Japan. Don't think rich women are dtfferent Emperor's kindergarten classmate Yoko Ono could never got visitation right after divorce of fitst marriage. High class lovers usually double suicide in mountain.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Did someone die and make you God that can can decide to tell anyone what they should or should not do?

The law does.

you miss HER rights.

and you miss the other women's rights.

They were separated and the divorce became final some time afterwards.

Then what she should be doing is file for recongnition of non father child relationship, not challenging the law and demanding for 3 Million yen. No Japanese I know is siding with her

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The pld laws were created before DNA test was introduced. Until Meiji Ishin Govt prohibited, it was feudal custom that peace treaty was donw by presenting lords' sons' head and present lords' daughters to be winning lords' concubines. As lord Mouri;s wife said we don't have enough silk for head, and lord said he was too old to have concubine, the custom was prohibited by Hirobumi Itoh, first Japanese PM ( RE Bouchou Kinnou shidan ) But childfren's right are still ignotrf in japan.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

and you miss the other women's rights.

How so?

Then what she should be doing is file for recongnition of non father child relationship, not challenging the law and demanding for 3 Million yen. No Japanese I know is siding with her

No Japanese you know? Which means the people you know are just as ignorant and blind as you are. It really is that simple. The recognition she seeks is to allow the biological father of her child to be recognized as such, how hard is it for your to understand that?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

lawsuit will open people's mind in Japan. Nakineiri custom obeyed people whose child got a label of Shiseiji .

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

How so?

Without this law, each time woman gave birth a baby, she has to prove who the father is, and the baby has no official father until proven. The society becomes mess.

No Japanese you know? Which means the people you know are just as ignorant and blind as you are.

Why is supporting this law ignorant and blind? Do you think all the Japanese people since Meiji era including all the lawmakers and all the judges and lawyers are ignorant and blind?

The recognition she seeks is to allow the biological father of her child to be recognized as such, how hard is it for your to understand that?

No, she is demanding 3 Million yen and challenging the constitutionality of the law. If she was wanting a recognition of the real father, it is normal thing to do and many people are doing.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

only3 Million yen/? tnis must be original estimation. They did not think of loss of monthly income during time of litigation.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Without this law, each time woman gave birth a baby, she has to prove who the father is, and the baby has no official father until proven. The society becomes mess.

So according to you BECAUSE of this law women today do not have to prove who the father of their child is for official purposes? Do you realize how ignorant that sounds?

Take away the law and the women will have to somehow PROVE who the dad is? They don't do it now......

Rolling on the floor here laughing at just how ludicrous that anyone would think this way.

Why is supporting this law ignorant and blind? Do you think all the Japanese people since Meiji era including all the lawmakers and all the judges and lawyers are ignorant and blind?

Typical group mentality response when you have nothing better to say or accept the reality of the truth that you are.

But to answer your question; YES they are, particularly the men who wrote it and forced the women to follow it. It's sexist and with many other blatantly sexist things here in Japan the women are partially to blame as well.

Now dont go and try and tell me that women in Japan are different and like being discriminated against, and being subservient, etc etc etc.

No, she is demanding 3 Million yen and challenging the constitutionality of the law. If she was wanting a recognition of the real father, it is normal thing to do and many people are doing.

Recognition of the father comes from the fact that she was unable to legally register both their wedding AND the birth of their child....and compensation, and wanting to change the law,

Read through the entire article before assuming things please.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Yubaru, Why do you always assume you know better than the Japanese in everything? As the article says the legislation has helped to prevent paternity disputes and therefore had a reasonable aim.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Yubaru, Why do you always assume you know better than the Japanese in everything?

get out of here with that garbage. is that the only argument you can come up with? laughable. you do not speak for all Japanese people. Ascthe article mentions, the couple is, ahem, Japanese, so your is your point?

As the article says the legislation has helped to prevent paternity disputes and therefore had a reasonable aim.

So, why not make the law applicable to both men and women? this law is sexist, without merit, and should hopefully be overturned. welcome to the 21st centuey, Ms. Watanabe.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@tinawatanabeOCT. 18, 2015 - 08:05AM JST Yubaru, Why do you always assume you know better than the Japanese in everything?

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

because he usually knows better than the uneducated Japanese who write without knowledge in everything.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Yubaru, Why do you always assume you know better than the Japanese in everything? As the article says the legislation has helped to prevent paternity disputes and therefore had a reasonable aim.

Why do you assume to believe that paternity disputes have been prevented? Do you actually believe everything you read in the news? Granted some may have been prevented, yet if this was so perfect a law then pray tell why have there been numerous TV programs with young adults and others, here in Japan, with Japanese people, searching for their biological parent(s)?

Not adopted, growing up believing one thing and then being shocked to find out that one or another of their parents wasn't really their biological one. This "law" did nothing to help prevent anything.

Scratch the surface and while you may only hear of "one" there are always tens and probably hundreds, maybe thousands of other cases that never make the news or press. Blindly believing that your interests are being looked out for by the laws of the country is not prudent, and that doesnt go for Japan alone, that's anywhere in the world.

Oh and in response to this: "Why do you always assume you know better than the Japanese in everything?"

Not "everything", but many things, because I work hard at educating myself about issues and formulate my thoughts and opinions based upon my beliefs.

One other thing ....I am Japanese, so I figure that gives me the right too! I personally support this woman and hope she succeeds. It would be a small step forward for women's rights, small but important none the less.

@ toshiko and cardsfan....thank you!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Why do you assume to believe that paternity disputes have been prevented?

Because the rule is so simple and easy to follow. There have been many married couples since Meiji era but not large number of couples came to complain the law, and the above article says the two courts says this law is not unconstitutional. Obviously there are many people support this law.

Not adopted, growing up believing one thing and then being shocked to find out that one or another of their parents wasn't really their biological one. This "law" did nothing to help prevent anything.

I think you misunderstood this law. It has nothing to do with this law.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Yubaru,

A valiant effort in trying to use reason here, but sometimes we all have to realise that some people are unable to see reason, don't want to see reason or are just intransigent. As I think the case is here. I wouldn't waste your time any further.

I mean, let's face it. There should never be a different restriction on remarriage for a man vs. a woman. Never. Particularly in this day and age. Whatever rationale one may offer for it being true back in the days when there were no cars and swords were the preferred weapon of choice, it makes no sense now. Anyone that argues for different requirements is just sexist, ignorant or an idiot. Full stop.

As for there being any restriction/minimum time limit between a divorce being finalised and a marriage being permitted, again, maybe this made sense at some point, but when one considers that the process to initiate and finalise a divorce takes a good deal of time anyway, one has to wonder why there is anything more than a cursory period between a divorce being finalised and a marriage being permitted. One would think.

As for the ludicrous idea that any child should have someone recognised as his biological father for legal purposes when it is clear and demonstrable that someone else is his biological father, I cannot believe anyone with any intelligence can argue and defend this. Just because it is so and has been the law does not make it right. It is just ridiculous. Particularly when it so easily does not have to be so.

Finally, this whole episode highlights the sheer archaic nature of the family register system in Japan. Again, it is something that has served Japan well. But, seriously, the world changes. Things change. And it is a throwback to a time when sexism prevailed, when class structure prevailed, when discrimination was rampant and when people could never escape their past. Sort of like the Indian caste system. For example, the idea of a child being borne "out of wedlock" as part of the family register as a fact is just reprehensible. Fact or not, why does it matter.

In any event, how anyone can continue to defend the status quo on this particular issue just blows my mind. Seriously. And as I have watched the back and forth, I just find some people using ridiculous arguments to defend the indefensible.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Dropped out of the conversation to take care of a sick family member and coming back just to make one final comment.

I really find it astonishing that someone would be so worried about the invasion of a child's privacy by a paternity test that they would prefer to have the child registered as the offspring of a man they have never me and have no blood of other relationship to. How that could be construed to be protecting the rights of the child is twisted at the very least.

Also, it seems that many are assuming a woman who becomes pregnant by another man while still legally married to her husband is the one who broke the bonds of marraige, is impatient, unable to wait a few months, etc. Bug what about cases such as one I know in which the husband cleared out thd bank accounts and abandoned his family to run off with a foreign bar hostesses? The wife waited for years hoping he would come to his senses and return home. Then when she decided divorce was the only option it was time consuming and complicated because the husband's whereabouts had become unknown. Throughout all this she struggled to house and feed herself and her child as there were no family members able to help, city wouldn't give her welfare because she had a husband, she couldn't find a decent paying job, etc. She stayed single, but what if at some point she took up with another man either out of genuine love or even just as a desperate measure to survive, and ended up pregnant? Do you seriously believe any resulting child should be registered as the child of the deadbeat husband?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Yubaru OCT. 17, 2015 - 03:39PM JST

Did you read the article? They were separated and the divorce became final some time afterwards.

I can read that. This means the divorce had not actually come down, thus legally they are still married. So either this women is ignorant or she KNEW what would happen and basically did it on the long shot she can get the court to hand her a few real million. Tina may not represent Japan but if I put this problem this way, it is quite plausible she did not have sympathizers.

@zones2surf OCT. 18, 2015 - 05:43PM JST

There should never be a different restriction on remarriage for a man vs. a woman.

That's pretty categorical. Here's what you are saying: Even IF the judges are correct, and this law does prevent one hundred percent of paternity disputes, thus making it have indisputable societal good value, you will still say they are idiots for favoring this societal good over a very small restriction on women?

Equality for women does not mean equality at all costs, because that's actually inequality.

That's what "never" means. Do you want to say that?

one has to wonder why there is anything more than a cursory period between a divorce being finalised and a marriage being permitted. One would think.

I don't know. Because for one thing, some divorces can be processed pretty fast in Japan, and six months is pretty cursory for such a thing really.

Particularly when it so easily does not have to be so.

First, the law does not say "biological". It says that if the child is conceived during marriage, the law presumes it is the husband's kid. If the husband doesn't like that, he can rebutt that presumption.

This way, when a women cheats on her husband (thus, husband is a victim here) and gets pregnant, he gets a lot of options, which seems only fair since he is the victim. He can keep the child just by speaking up and according to law no one can do anything about it. Sure biological father gets deprived of his kid, but since he actually did something pretty immoral, something illegal in a lot of countries, depriving him of something seems fair enough. If he doesn't like taking care of that kid for any reason, he can rebutt the presumption.

Kid benefits, because there is a chance father will keep quiet. If he does, he can get the status of a jisshi, which in title-conscious Japan is likely the best possible cut. (And let's face it, I don't think there are that many countries in the world where being born out of wedlock is actually honorable - it is just the size of the stigma).

Let's look at your scenario. Husband gets unconditionally deprived though the kid WAS born in his wife's womb. Kid does not benefit because though biological father is willing to recognize him, he is still born out of wedlock and any truthful register of the circumstances of his birth will have to record it as such.

Really, this is better?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

zones and Educator and others are misunderstood about this law. You should see this law with other laws combined and also you shouldn't see just small group of people but the whole society because this law involves almost everybody. If you don't like this law fine but you don't have to insult the whole Japanese people.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Do you seriously believe any resulting child should be registered as the child of the deadbeat husband?

Tina does, as she will blindly support any law by the Japanese government, no matter how ridiculous it is.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@ Tina and Kazuaki.....

All this law is about in a nut shell is the government telling a woman to keep her legs shut while her soon to be ex-husband is free to run around and screw like a bunny if he so chooses as there are not consequences that he need face.

The law is dictating morals to a female and allowing men to do as they please. It really is that simple.

This means the divorce had not actually come down, thus legally they are still married

Right and that means the law is dictating to the woman about what she can and can not do, namely get pregnant.

Like I said, it's a sexist and discriminatory law, the ONLY way to make it fair is to put the man under the same standards and not allow him to impregnate any woman either.

Hell if he does, by using YOUR logic his soon to be ex-wife, by law, should be considered the mother, because he was still married at the time!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Really, this is better?

Better to me, but seems be the same for her sympathizers..

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@Kazuaki Shimazaki,

Equality for women does not mean equality at all costs, because that's actually inequality. That's what "never" means. Do you want to say that?

"Never" does not mean that equality at all costs is actually inequality. How is equal terms and conditions for remarriage for both men and women result in inequality. And, yes, I meant "never". I just don't accept that "never" results in inequality. Prove me wrong.

I don't know. Because for one thing, some divorces can be processed pretty fast in Japan, and six months is pretty cursory for such a thing really.

OK, if you say so. Then change the law and impose the same six month waiting time for men as well. No reason not to, since it is pretty cursory according to you.

First, the law does not say "biological". It says that if the child is conceived during marriage, the law presumes it is the husband's kid. If the husband doesn't like that, he can rebutt that presumption.

Sure, the law presumes that. Which is why there is this lawsuit. So, setting aside what I think of the law, its OK for the husband to rebut that presumption but not the wife?? And not the biological father? Is that what you are implying?

This way, when a women cheats on her husband (thus, husband is a victim here) and gets pregnant, he gets a lot of options, which seems only fair since he is the victim. He can keep the child just by speaking up and according to law no one can do anything about it. Sure biological father gets deprived of his kid, but since he actually did something pretty immoral, something illegal in a lot of countries, depriving him of something seems fair enough. If he doesn't like taking care of that kid for any reason, he can rebutt the presumption.

Wow, just wow. What a completely sexist, neanderthal statement!! Of course, silly me. Because of course the husband is always the victim. And the woman is "cheating" on her husband. Of course. And, of course, it is her and the biological father that did something "pretty immoral". What an utterly offensive premise for arguing for this. How about the possibility that the divorce might have been the result of the husband screwing around on his wife (of course, this never happens in Japan) or beating the heck out of his wife (again, I know this never happens in Japan). How about the possibility that the marriage has been "dead" for years and both parties have found new lovers. Consider that the husband can "cheat" on his soon to be ex-wife, get his new girlfriend pregnant, marry her the day after the divorce is finalised (assuming she is not married at the time) and she gives birth to their child without any issue. Complete and utter discrimination. Full stop.

Kid benefits, because there is a chance father will keep quiet. If he does, he can get the status of a jisshi, which in title-conscious Japan is likely the best possible cut. (And let's face it, I don't think there are that many countries in the world where being born out of wedlock is actually honorable - it is just the size of the stigma).

Yes, of course, by all means. Let's lie to kids about who their fathers because of some out-of-date social and legal practices give them benefits by growing up with a certain status by being the "child" of someone who is not their father. Of course. Never mind that the mother and ex-husband were getting divorced when all of this happens. Never mind that the mother may be remarried to the child's biological father. Are you kidding me?!?

Let's look at your scenario. Husband gets unconditionally deprived though the kid WAS born in his wife's womb. Kid does not benefit because though biological father is willing to recognize him, he is still born out of wedlock and any truthful register of the circumstances of his birth will have to record it as such.

Now I am just shaking my darn head. The husband "gets unconditionally deprived though the kid WAS born in his wife's womb"????? If its NOT HIS KID how is he unconditionally deprived. What, is his wife (soon to be ex-wife) his possession?? And whatever is in her womb while they are married belongs to him???? And the kid DOES benefit, because the his biological father IS recognised which may likely be the husband his mother is now married to. As for the truthful register of the circumstances of his birth, well, that goes back to changing the law to minimise the possibility of the child being borne out of wedlock. And, by the way, this is not my scenario. See my next comment.

Really, this is better?

What is better is a complete revision/rethink of this whole issue. Change the law(s). Men and women can remarry immediately after divorce. Where a woman is pregnant, SHE declares who the father is. If the person she declares as the father is not the ex-husband, he can challenge and request a DNA test. Similarly, if the person she names as father does not believe it is his, he can challenge as well. In this particular circumstance, if my scenario were to be adopted, there would be no issue. Period. The ex-wife and biological father would have been married, any DNA test would have proved biological father's paternity and the child would have been born "in wedlock". End of story.

@tinawatanabe,

If you don't like this law fine but you don't have to insult the whole Japanese people.

But, clearly, I am not insulting the whole Japanese people. Not all Japanese people think like you, if you are Japanese. And just because it is the current law of the land does not mean that this is what all Japanese people want. And I don't believe you speak for all Japanese people. If you think, however, I have insulted you, then I am sorry. However, I just find this situation to be offensive and without defense in this day and age. And, thus, am speaking my mind.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The rule to register a child's birth hasn't been changed yet. There is no others (Sono hoka) to enter child's birth sratus. I wrote about 4 kind, If you have a Japanese English Dictionary, check what is Shiseiji. Also Shoshi. The label stuck for a person. School? They are labeled Mekake no ko and target of daily iinsult of classmates. Many schools do not pass them on entrance exam. f you are jisshi, how goofy you are, you will be promoted. Some shoshi people may get jobs with their fathers' connection but no promotion chance,

1 ( +2 / -1 )

just because it is the current law of the land does not mean that this is what all Japanese people want.

That's your wishful thinking. There is no evidence to suggest that. So far the courts do no find it unconsitutional. I don't know how the top court will decide because lately the top court rules against public opinions. But I tell you all friends of mine I talked to support this law.

The law favors the law abiding people over law breakers. You are only concerned about the law breaker and completely ignoring law abiding people.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@tinawatanabe,

That's your wishful thinking. There is no evidence to suggest that. So far the courts do no find it unconsitutional. I don't know how the top court will decide because lately the top court rules against public opinions. But I tell you all friends of mine I talked to support this law.

OK, so let's break down your statement because you are conflating two things: the constitutionality of the law, and whether all Japanese people want it.

Regarding whether the courts find it unconstitutional or not may not be and should not be linked to what Japanese people want. So, to mention this point in your reply to me regarding whether this is what all Japanese people want is completely irrelevant.

Regarding whether all Japanese people want it, it has nothing to do with my "wishful thinking". There are at least TWO Japanese (this couple) that want the law changed. So, by definition, ALL Japanese people do not want this law. Good for you that all of your friends support this law. I am glad that you have 128 million friends. Seriously, they say that birds of a feather flock together, which means that you are probably surrounded by people that think like you. That does not mean that all Japanese support this law. There is no evidence to suggest this.

But beyond that, there are sometimes laws on the books that need to be changed, even if they are supported by the majority of people at the time. Why? Because they are just wrong.

The law favors the law abiding people over law breakers. You are only concerned about the law breaker and completely ignoring law abiding people.

My goodness. Law breakers??? You consider these people "law breakers"?? They broke NO law. Rather, the laws in place dictated a certain treatment for their desire to marry and for registering their child, something they wish to change. That does NOT make them "law breakers". In fact, calling them that is just downright offensive.

Actually, what I care about is the principle of non-discrimination and fairness and revision of outdated laws. That is the whole idea of laws being updated and revised. Particularly in recent decades where anachronistic laws around the world have had to be updated to remove discriminatory provisions and treatment of people based on gender, race, etc.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

This is the first step to reduce Japan from discriminatory country. Koseki related discrimination. heimin ranked people do not realize they too are considered less than shizoku (samurai descendent) at job promotion.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The law favors the law abiding people over law breakers. You are only concerned about the law breaker and completely ignoring law abiding people.

Times change, there may have been a time when a legal code like this served it's purpose but times change and laws must change and adapt to the current situation. There are many ludicrous and idiotic laws on the books in every country, Japan is no exception.

Your suggesting that "all" Japanese agree with this law is way off the mark as well, unless you are directly affected by this law or "know" about it, more than likely the average person will know nothing about it and will not question it because it does not affect them.

This woman is attempting to affect change that will benefit not only her but ALL women after her as well. Odd's are she isnt thinking about it in that manner and her goals are more than likely selfish, (not a bad term there either) but if it IS found to be unconstitutional she will assisting in bringing one part of Japan out of the relative dark ages and into the 21st Century.

If you want to live in a box fine, but let the rest of the country move forward.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Tinawatanabe

can I ask, If you think this 6 month re-marriage restriction is a good thing do you think it should also be applied to men so its at least equal in that it applies to both partners?

Many other makes good points, its not simply the will of the people that effects change, but the ideals of universal human rights and equality.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

You all JT readers ewad Abe talks about promoting women, then politicians do name calling to insult women lawmakers. Bow inequality of marriadw, a tip of iceberg revealed

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@zones

Regarding whether the courts find it unconstitutional or not may not be and should not be linked to what Japanese people want.

The law itself is created and maintained by the lawmakers who are representatives of people. Obviously that's what Japanese people want. And the law was found not unconstitutional for good measure.

There are many ways to express objections if any for the people, collecting many signatures and see relevant Ministers, or rallying, or suing like this woman.

There are at least TWO Japanese (this couple) that want the law changed.

Only two out of 0.1 billion people is practically zero.

you are probably surrounded by people that think like you.

Or there are almost no existent.

Because they are just wrong.

Why? Right or wrong differs by people to people. There is no reason that the Japanese has to be forced the western "right"

You consider these people "law breakers"??

I used it as general. We don't know in detail about this woman's case, and we haven't heard anything from her husband point of view. She may not be telling the whole story.

What husband want to raise a kid who was born from wife's cheating? Most husband would want to rebutt the presumption and then no problem right? If husband is very good husband and wife has no complaining but cheated for some reason maybe for fun and became pregnant. In this case husband could demand devorce or just endure and keep the baby. Isn't it nice for the good husband to have choices? "Law favors law abiding people" ?

And I don't believe DNA testing will solve all the paternity disputes. We have to think many kind of situations such as the testing does not indicate either men.

what I care about is the principle of non-discrimination and fairness and revision of outdated laws.

This is not discrimination but practicality. It is ridiculous to demand in everything exact the same treatment between man and woman when there is difference. Fairness does not mean the same treatment.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@tinawatanabe,

All I can do is just sigh.... and shake my darn head and put it in my hands. There is no point trying to discuss this any further. As I advised @Yubaru, sometimes it is just best to recognise that some people are unable to see reason, don't want to see reason or are just intransigent. As I think the case is here. I won't waste my time any further.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

And I don't believe DNA testing will solve all the paternity disputes. We have to think many kind of situations such as the testing does not indicate either men.

Do you realize what you just wrote here?

DNA testing definitely solved the issue for the "two" men involved. It PROVED that neither was the father. It also proved beyond a doubt that the woman in question was receiving sperm from another source. That was PROVED by DNA testing. Just because a sample wasn't received from the actual father of the child does not mean that the testing did not work. I think you have a hard time considering the other option, that there was a third party (or more) sleeping with the woman, that got her pregnant. To dismiss the DNA testing based upon your logic is quite off the mark.

To say that DNA testing does not work is like saying that the world is flat.

This is not discrimination but practicality.

Sigh.......same thing was said in Japan when burakumin were told they couldn't marry someone out of their class, it's not discrimination it's "practicality". There are countless other examples where people use this argument when they can't find a reasonable argument to justify their opinion and run away from reality.

@zones...you are most right. But I am ever the optimist!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

sometimes it is just best to recognise that some people are unable to see reason, don't want to see reason or are just intransigent

I agree.

Just because a sample wasn't received from the actual father of the child does not mean that the testing did not work

I never said the testing didn't work. I said the testing does not solve all the patenity disputes. it may even create a new one such as the one I said that it may end up to prove that the woman had slept with a 3rd man, for instance.

None of you answered what we should do with the situation. The existing system at least help the woman and baby.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

zone2surf: ... with regards to the approval of the pill for Japanese women. Approval languished for decades. But... magically, viagra got approved in 6 months!

HOW long has Japan had declining birth rate? Don't the old guys in power have a vested interest in growing more little future taxpayers? Explains both the pill and viagra!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I never said the testing didn't work. I said the testing does not solve all the patenity disputes. it may even create a new one such as the one I said that it may end up to prove that the woman had slept with a 3rd man, for instance.

You are most welcome, I am the one who gave you that option or potential scenario when I replied to your comment quoted again, you are beyond pulling straws now.

I don't believe DNA testing will solve all the paternity disputes. We have to think many kind of situations such as the testing does not indicate either men.

The existing system at least help the woman and baby.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It seems to me that the woman is fighting the current law, not her ex-husband who may, we do not know, agree with her. All other arguments aside, they were after all separated for a while before the divorce.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

again, I ask.

@Tinawatanabe

can I ask, If you think this 6 month re-marriage restriction is a good thing do you think it should also be applied to men so its at least equal in that it applies to both partners?

Look, if no-one can get re-married with in 6 months of divorce then I could understand that to a degree, but its the unequal application of that rule.

(I wonder if there are exceptions in cases of domestic violence.. would pretty horrible and possibly difficult to get privacy and so on if you are on the same family records etc.)

1 ( +1 / -0 )

do you think it should also be applied to men so its at least equal in that it applies to both partners?

I said above that it is ridiculous to demand in everything exact the same treatment between man and woman when there is difference. There is no reason for men to wait. As I said this law is not discrimination against woman. If it is discrimination, there would be bigger complaint from women.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@tinawatanabe,

There is no reason for men to wait.

There is no reason for women to wait.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There is no reason for women to wait.

But it has worked so long in Japan. Why do you ignore the positive side of it? Have you ever compared the numbers of paternity disputes between Japan and other countries? If Japan has more disputes then I might consider your point.

And It is not only me who are defending this law even in this thread, so what do you think of them? Stupid who are defending no reason law?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@tinawatanabe,

But that does not answer the point

There is no reason for women to wait. Just as there is no reason for men to wait. None.

Tell me why, in this day and age, they should wait. 21st century. Science. Technology. Progress. These are good things that have removed the original reasons for these provisions/restrictions.

Worked so long in Japan: Even if true, so? If there is a better way to do it now in the 21st century, perhaps there is a better way to do it. Letter writing worked so long. But with technology, we now have e-mail.

Positive side of it: Which is what? But even if there is a positive side to it, there are clearly negative sides to it.

Comparison of paternity disputes between Japan and other countries: Irrelevant. That is a deflection from the real issue. The number of paternity disputes is not the issue. It is how paternity is determined that is a core issue. And the resulting impact on the remarriage provisions.

What do I think of others defending the law: Again, irrelevant. It is not what I think of those defending the law per se, it is their basis for defending the law.

By the way, you might want to read the attached. See page 3.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cedaw/docs/co/CEDAW.C.JPN.CO.6.pdf

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@zones2surf OCT. 18, 2015 - 09:10PM JST

"Never" does not mean that equality at all costs is actually inequality. How is equal terms and conditions for remarriage for both men and women result in inequality. And, yes, I meant "never". I just don't accept that "never" results in inequality. Prove me wrong.

First, my objection to your statement is one of principle. Had you said something like "Given the current state of technology, paternity disputes can be settled with such ease the potential inconvenience from them does not justify such a restriction on women", it'll have been at least a defensible statement. But that's not what you said. You said "never". Never means you do not care what the current state of technology or the potential harm from paternity disputes are - cost ceases to be a factor and you will object to any restriction on women that's not on men. And that's when the nature of your argument turns from reasoned and multifactored to ideological and monofactor.

Because of the "unfortunate" existence known as a womb, women are intrinsically less free to get away from relationships. That's an "Act of God" we shall say. The fact everyone is thinking of mitigating the paternity problems with tests suggest it is really an issue - it is not weightless and thus a "0-0 delay" solution imposes a societal cost. To close our eyes to this is to close our eyes to inequality.

OThen change the law and impose the same six month waiting time for men as well.

Actually, I won't object to this. In fact, let's make it 9 months or so. In the meantime, however, I see it as a bit like a hypothetical ban of smoking on women which was justified on the potential effect on embryos. The equality people would scream, but smoking was never such a great idea, and it is undeniable females have this one more reason that males don't. If that pushes things over the line, then well, why object to what is really a good idea just because women had to "go first"?

its OK for the husband to rebut that presumption but not the wife?? And not the biological father? Is that what you are implying?

Sure. Here's why. Marriage is a kind of juristic act, very close to a contract. So, we might just say it is a contract, and one clause is exclusive use of each other's sex organs. Sure, both sides can cheat on each other, which will be a contractual breach. However, if he manages to avoid STDs and we temporarily ignore "moral" factors, the mechanistic loss of a man going out for a fling is almost unquantifiably small - a spoonful of that renewable resource, sperm.

That's also true of a women, but only until the woman gets pregnant and she doesn't immediately abort using one of those morning-after pills or whatever. Now the man's right to access the woman's womb is irrevocably denied for the next 9 months until that bastard child dumps out. Can you see how in mechanistic terms his contractual interests have been violated in a significant, quantifiable way?

As for "biological father"? He lost his investment of sperm. I'm sure it'll refill in about 24 hours and if he knew the law, he knew he'll be losing that investment.

Because of course the husband is always the victim.

There may indeed be mitigating factors in some of the cases, but in 100% of the cases, Husband's contractual interests have been violated in a much more significant way than if he had been the cheater. Besides as a practical matter, if female was that badly abused, we really need a delay before remarriage. He might just have been your escape outlet from your abusive husband, but does he really look that good once you are free of Ex-husband?

Yes, of course, by all means. Let's lie to kids about who their fathers because of some out-of-date social and legal practices give them benefits by growing up with a certain status by being the "child" of someone who is not their father.

Out of date or not, they are still active. They are part of the terrain and if you ignore them when you pump out your kid and cause him to become disadvantaged, you are as responsible as if you did not did drugs during pregnancy and thus crimped your embryo's growth.

The husband "gets unconditionally deprived though the kid WAS born in his wife's womb"????? If its NOT HIS KID how is he unconditionally deprived. What, is his wife (soon to be ex-wife) his possession?? And whatever is in her womb while they are married belongs to him????

His wife is not his possession. But she had signed a contract (marriage) granting Husband exclusive rights to her womb, and he's now not only losing exclusivity but even access. It is Husband's contractual interests being violated here.

As for the truthful register of the circumstances of his birth, well, that goes back to changing the law to minimise the possibility of the child being borne out of wedlock.

One would think you should first be aware of the law and avoid your child being born out of wedlock.

End of story.

No it won't. Under your rules, that poor kid will indeed be recognized as new daddy's kid, but he'll still be youji, being "born in May which was right before she was legally granted the divorce". He will forever suffer the shame, undeserved though as it is, of being born out of wedlock.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

zones

New things are not always good things. I think you are trying to fix something not broken. I'm sure your way will invite more confusion into the society.

The number of paternity disputes is very important. The purpose of laws is maintaining the social order. I think you are pursuing individualism I am pursuing social order.

Thanks for the link I'll read it later but US law has nothing to do with Japan. Anyway let's wait how the top court will decide.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

But it has worked so long in Japan. Why do you ignore the positive side of it? Have you ever compared the numbers of paternity disputes between Japan and other countries? If Japan has more disputes then I might consider your point.

How do you know it has worked? You frequently keep your head in the sand on so many issues, not to mention that this is a family related issue and would receive little if any press on an individual basis. Family court there, no press. Plus most Japanese women choose to keep their heads down and view divorces (men as well) as being a stigma in and of itself, for many that is.

Like so many other issues with Japan, international and national as well, since it doesnt make the news everyone assumes there are no problems, since you dont read about it somewhere you automatically assume it has worked.

Thinking outside the box and questioning laws for their inequality literally scares you Tina, that's my impression and opinion. You are afraid, because if you question 1, then the dominoes fall and everything you believed in up until now is open for questioning. That is why you can not accept that this law is wrong and has to be changed, even you being a woman are willing to accept discrimination against your own sex, because you can not question it without other consequences.

I said above that it is ridiculous to demand in everything exact the same treatment between man and woman when there is difference. There is no reason for men to wait. As I said this law is not discrimination against woman. If it is discrimination, there would be bigger complaint from women.

Read what I wrote above. Just because someone doesnt complain doesnt mean they are not being discriminated against. Thinking like that is just ludicrous. There are way too many examples to show you how wrong you are.

I do believe you dont understand or know what discrimination is in the first place to be making a comment like this.

Oh no reason for men to wait? Yes there is, again here, using YOUR Tina logic, if the man gets a woman pregnant before the divorce is final, the woman who the man is divorcing should, again by your logic, be the baby's mother, even though she did not give birth to the child. Oh you will say that sounds stupid, but so is the divorced, or soon to be divorced man being assumed to be the father of a baby that he is not.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Thinking outside the box and questioning laws for their inequality literally scares you Tina, that's my impression and opinion. You are afraid, because if you question 1, then the dominoes fall and everything you believed in up until now is open for questioning.

Seriously, please actually consider what you've wrote. Tina is going to have their world view destroyed if they question a 6 month wait for remarriage law? Why don't you accuse her of having 'internalized misogyny' while you're at it.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

With modern DNA testing, which accurately confirms or denies paternity, these laws have become completely outmoded.

I did not know these sorts of laws still existed. I came across what must be one of the earliest of this type of law in Western Civilization class. Ancient Rome had such a law: a woman could not remarry until ten months after a divorce. This was waved in the case of the first Roman Emperor, Caesar Augustus, who married his third wife Livia when she was six months pregnant by her first husband, because the men involved agreed on the paternity of the child. Such gentleman's agreements are no longer necessary. We have the science.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

We have the science.

It should be the laws not the science that control our lives. What if husband is infertile and wife get pregnant from donated sperm, and later the donor demand the kid?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

But it has workedBut it has worked so long in Japan. Why do you ignore the positive side of it? Have you ever compared the numbers of paternity disputes between Japan and other countries? If Japan has more distnenputes then I might consider your point. Have you ever compared the numbers of paternity disputes between Japan and other countries? If Japan has more disputes then I might consider your point.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Paternity legal suits are just invading of privacy as DNA tests. People asking you impertinently are the father for inheritance? None of your business. The whole thing of paternity is such a load of nonsense- if you act as the father you are the father.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites