politics

Cabinet approves child abduction treaty

35 Comments

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

© 2013 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

35 Comments
Login to comment

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said following cabinet approval, the government would swiftly submit the necessary legislation to parliament.

It will be fascinating to hear the racist speeches in the Diet condemning the bill, and the stories about this is the only protection Japanese women have from abusive foreign husbands, and how this is effectively neo-colonialism etc

1 ( +8 / -7 )

joining is one thing, enforcing is another. I highly doubt any children will ever be returned to America (or Australia, canada, UK etc) as a result of this treaty.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

kimuzukashiiii, a very valid observation. Laws are one thing, enforcement is completely another matter. Still, the courts are not the same as the administration workers who will be making the initial decisions.

It may take some trips to the court house to wrangle the administration until they understand that the laws passed cannot be ignored.

It will be a better situation than what exists now. At least a judge will hear the case and there will be an opportunity for justice where one doesn't exist now.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Right. So - what? 2 or 3 years after expressing plans to sign the treaty they now have the cabinet on board. So can we expect a signature before the cabinet changes again and we have to start all over again?

And I agree with kimukukashii - signing is one thing. Enforcing is quite another. The countries already siged up to it dont exactly have a stellar track record for enforcing it.

But viking also mkes a good point. Anything is better than what we have now.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Well, we have reached the point that we did at the same time last year...Then things stalled, again. It would be nice if Japan would join this treaty and adhere to it, returning children who have been abducted to Japan to their habitual residence... Unfortunately Japan is refusing to address any of the existing cases, and seems to be unwilling to address their broken family court system - which is the root of the problem. The Family Courts condone abduction within Japan and use it to determine sole custody.

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

Kyoudou Shinken Ima, Nippon.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

All the talk about Japan signing the Hague...

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

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

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

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

4 ( +6 / -2 )

True, enforcement may take a father a lot of time and money, but this would still be a very good step forward.

The real dynamic of this situation is that Japanese women who marry foreigners are considered a bit to be black sheep, antway; deserting country and culture, etc. But when they divorce, they are coming back into the fold, as it were.

In truth, most Japanese prefer to believe the woman were suckered into an abusive (or at least difficult) relationship than that possibly a Japanese woman could bear at least 50 percent of the responsibility for the break up.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Totally agree with the comments by Bruce and Patrick. The Hague is just window dressing. The real problem is the systemic denial of parental rights following divorce or separation. Until this problem is fixed, thousands of children in Japan will continue to suffer.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Let's remember when evaluating this development that this is what government elites (particularly Clinton as Secretary of State) in the US have pushed for years, and what Japanese elites have elected to do to address the Japanese state's image problem as a state run by corrupt party bosses and bureaucrats with little or no regard for human rights abuses. Parents of kidnapped children however have had to run alongside this process, attempting with no one in government circles really interested in listening, to shout out that our children are sill missing. Adopting the Hague, Japanese style, with all the xenophobic reservations in front and the principles of caring for children under a reasoned set of constraints set in international governance to the rear, leaves 20 years of ruined families suffering the spiritual agonies of their children's abduction to Japan untouched. That has ALWAYS been our chief objection to the limitations of the Hague Convention. The battle is not won; and any celebrations are more than pre-mature. They are a form of denial and disavowal. The crime of international kidnapping is an albatross that should be hung around Japan's neck. Send our babies home!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Hundreds of non-Japanese parents, mostly men from the United States and elsewhere, have been left without any recourse after their estranged partners took their children back to Japan.

And, the J-Gov has already stated it won't be acknowledging any previous cases, so this point is irrelevant. You can also bet your privates that all future cases will be met with a blind eye and the kidnapping woman will only have to say, "He is abusive" and that will be the end of that. I can not count the amount of men I know in Japan that have become estranged from their children because of their mean ex-wives.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Only one out of 10 comments saying something positive. I sense a little disingenuousness.

Normally, I would expect this signing to be a step in the right direction. However, if the above posters are to be believed, the same ones who criticized the govt for not signing the bill in the first place, this signing is a crock.

Well, you can't have your crock and eat it too...sorry. This can only be a good thing. Leave your "yeah, buts" and give credit where credit is due.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@sourpuss

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

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

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

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

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

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If Japan wants to step up in the international community they need to sign up, and in general bring their laws into the current century. Don't let the modern veneer fool you. It is still a third world country when it comes to Law and the issue of treating Foreign nationals like "ALIENS" instead of "HUMANS".

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Does this fall into the category of both Japanese nationals married? My son and us as grandparents have been deprived of his daughter and our grandchild all because the wife doesn't want to. And what is the family courts doing? For the past several months, my son has been attending and negotiating his rights. Nothing has been done. The talks are just going round and round with no improvements. On top of that, the family courts has done NOTHING!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Marilita - of course not. Because in Japan, it is commonly accepted that, if a couple divorce, the children will be in the sole custody of the mother and never see father or grandparents again.

I agree its the Japanese system that needs to get fixed first, however, with a few exceptions (like Marilitas son as mentioned above) Japanese men just don't challenge the system. They get divorced and don't want to pay child support or see the kid again, and often will just remarry, and start a new family again.

Im going to go out on a limb, and say that I doubt that it will matter if Japan signs the hague 100 times over, unless Japanese law and society will change their views about divorce, joint custody and the role of the father (as in, the role of a father as in being an actual father who knows and spends child with their child, not just a corporate workaholic 9-midnight slave who ignores his child during the week and then goes golfing at the weekends.)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

next soon to be hot topics on JT will be how jpn dodges the terms of the treaty after signing it

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The move towards signing the treaty is at least a move forward. The Japanese government are taking their time on for a number of reasons. Primarily because if they adopt the treaty, it would appear that the traditional 'Japanese' system was substandard in some way....Something Japan has difficulty accepting. Another reason is homogenous culture that is Japan, with so few bi-national children it appears as a non-pressing issue for any diet member and a hangnail for any who decides to bring it up.

If the system is archaic, then the signing of the treaty puts a precedent in place. As Japan is a country that practices civil law, this would be a big thing because there is now a procedure that supersedes the traditional implementation of Japanese law. It will take some Supreme court cases to hammer the point, but enforcement will come eventually.

As for the Japan reviewing case for the past 20 years, they logistically won't do it because it will flood the courts and make what is already a messy issue even more of a nato storm. I'm not even going to try extrapolating the feeling from those who just read that last part, cause I can't even imagine. The best to hope for an official apology or statement of remorse and a Japan-UN joint department of multinational family welfare (the department is a wish, but one can dream)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When I see my son I'll believe it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I genuinely hope this does come to pass and becomes an effective way to prevent kidnapping. But I fear it will have as many loopholes as the TPP negotiations.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

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

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

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

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

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

The paper goes on...

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

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

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

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Patrick McPike, the paper written by former judge on the Left Behind Parent homepage is a crap. The paper says as follows.

This reasoning is warranted by clauses in The Law that define DV as Physical Violence and Psychological Violence committed by husbands to wives, of course DV is defined as exclusively performed by men to women (Section 1 and 2 of the second clause of Article 28 of The Law). page2

The said Article 28, 2nd clause, section 1 and 2 is translated as follows.

Article 28, 2nd caluse

The court must take into consideration in judging the existence of the situations described in the item 4 of the previous clause all the facts including the following.

(i) the possibility that the child receives physical or psychological damage from the petitioner in the country of habitual residence.

(ii) the possibility that the respondent receives physical or psychological damage from the petitioner in the country of habitual residence that results in psychological damage to the child.

The proposed law is indifferent to the sex of the petitioner or respondent. If the paper does not tell the very basics properly, how can it be trusted?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan refuses to even discuss resolution of the more than 400 adbuctions from the United States to Japan during the last 18 years. This clearly indicates their insincerety and lack of concern for children, and demonstrates that they are only signing the Hague due to political pressure.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Japanabducts

That is not true. The lef behind parents should file law suit in Japan. There are cases foreign parents, mainly Asians, won custody.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@CH3CHO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@CH3CHO

According the US Government:

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

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

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@CH3CHO

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

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

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Do not blindly believe in activists. The will feed you what they want you to believe, to make you a free advertising machine.

Do you have a link to the proposed legislation?

It is on the home page you linked. http://lbpjapan.org/Newsletter/Cabinet_Proposal_Japanese3.pdf

. This is currently part of an ongoing issue with Article 766 of the Japan Civil Code. It was changed last year, but the MoJ is ignoring the commentary and refusing to apply the law.

Article 766 is in full effect. There is no need to wait "commentary" or anything by MOJ. You must be talking about Family Registry Act, rather than Civil Code. Article 76 of Family Registry Act stipulates the procedural requirements for divorce. A divorcing couple must file the name of the custodial parent. But they do not need to file visitation agreement or alimony payment because such items are not recorded in family registry. Some activists argue that Family Registry Act should be changed so that visitation agreement and alimony payment become procedural requirement for divorce. But that should be directed to the Diet rather than MOJ.

We have dozens of document cases of jurisdictional theft by Japanese courts. We also have cases of nationality theft

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

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Do not blindly believe in activists.

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

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

Article 766 is in full effect.

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

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

You are lumping several legal issues together.

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

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

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

And you continue to ignore the following facts:

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

2) Child abduction is a form of child abuse

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

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

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

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

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The law was updated in 2011 and is being ignored by the courts.

OK. Give me a case number.

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

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

article 9. 1.States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.

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

article 11. 1.States Parties shall take measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children abroad.

Absolutely. When making the return judgment, Government should take the best interest of the child into full consideration. If the child expresses his opinion that he wants to live in Japan and if the court finds it the best interest of the child, court should not force him to leave Japan.

If you think Japan violates treaty, why not bring the case to International Court of Justice? The US does not have the right to sue Japan because it is one of the only 2 countries that have not ratified UN Child Right Treaty. European countries do not sue Japan because they know they lose if they sue Japan for Japan does not violate the treaty. "Japan violates treaty" is a propaganda that stirs hate and self righteousness.

2) Child abduction is a form of child abuse.

Freedom of movement is a constitutional right. If a child moves from a slum to a suburban residential area, it is called "abduction" in the US. "Oh, he loses all his friends and the tie with the neighborhood." Forcing a child to live in a slum is child abuse.

4) If other countries were harboring people who broke Japanese law and then fled Japan to "avoid jurisdiction", Japan would be up in arms.

Nope. Find one such case.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

OK. Give me a case number.

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

Show me where it has been applied?

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

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

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

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

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

How does Japan define "the best interests of the child"? Because even though the treaty, and even the Japanese court bureaucracy ( http://www.courts.go.jp/video/kodomo_video/flv/kodomo_bb_01.html ), recognizes that it is in the best interests of children to have a relationship with BOTH parents, the Japanese courts do not make decisions based on that fact, nor do the courts ensure that children are able to exercise that "best interests" right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ENTIRE Article 11:

Article 11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oops. Japan violates that one too.

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

Freedom of movement is a constitutional right.

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

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

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

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

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

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Only one out of 10 comments saying something positive. I sense a little disingenuousness.

Normally, I would expect this signing to be a step in the right direction. However, if the above posters are to be believed, the same ones who criticized the govt for not signing the bill in the first place, this signing is a crock.

Well, you can't have your crock and eat it too...sorry. This can only be a good thing. Leave your "yeah, buts" and give credit where credit is due.

Well said sourpuss. I too clicked on this thread expecting to see some of the more vocal Japan critics tucking into a big plate of crow. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that they are now moving the goalposts to suggest that actually becoming a signatory has no significance because "we all know they won't enforce it anyway, and they aren't going to take any retroactive action on past cases".

Its a shame the way some (mostly) fathers have been treated by the Japanese government regarding custody/visitation rights. No doubt about that. As terrible as that is its no excuse for badmouthing the current Abe led government that seems determined to take some action on this issue.

Steps are being taken to address a serious problem ... why are so many people unwilling to see that as a positive? And where are all the posters who said (roughly two months ago when Abe announced his intention to make this issue a priority) - "never happen", "just sucking up to the USA", "more lipservice from Abe"?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@hidingout

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

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

http://vimeo.com/62007021

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Patrick McPike,

Your link, http://dot.asahi.com/aera/2012102400024.html, does not say, "the court ignores article 766 of Civil Code" or anything close to that. Wake up. I repeat, "Do not blindly believe in activists. The will feed you what they want you to believe, to make you a free advertising machine."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Ch3cho

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck continuing to try to defend child abuse.

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

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Patrick McPike, I do not want to talk with people who cannot see facts as facts because it is waste of time. The article you linked did not say what you claimed it said. The essay written by a former judge you linked turned out to be very inaccurate. That means you did not read it with critical thinking. People believe what they want to believe. You will not believe facts. I have already proved Japan does not violate UN Child Right Treaty.

How does Japan define "the best interests of the child"?

Best interest of the child is plain words that need no further explanation or "definition". The problem with defining the word is that, by doing so, it becomes something else. For example, if seeing both parents is defined to be the best interest of the child, seeing both parents becomes imperative. There are a lot of children in the US who have to meet their parents even though they do not want to. If staying in a habitual residence is defined to be the best interest of the child, a child must stay in whatever the environment he is in. There are a lot of children in the US who have to live in slums because those places were where they were when their parents got divorced.

Court should determine what the best interest of the child is by common sense. That is the way to ensure the best interest is protected.

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