Patrick McPike comments

@CH3CHO

You are doubly wrong.

No. As usual, you are merely ignoring 90% of what I said and creating a strawman argument.

I didn't say that it wasn't illegal, I was sarcastically pointing out that Japan was playing games. Japan's "official" position to the US State Department is that it is not a crime, and therefore the Department of Justice cannot make a extradition request under the treaty. I'm fully aware that this is a game and that Japan picks and chooses to apply or ignore laws when it is convenient for Japan to do so.

But thank you for the specific case reference. I sincerely hope that the details of the case are what you imply. I will be sure to pass it along to folks who can verify such and, if so, use it to get the State Department to push back on Japan's continued misrepresentation of Japanese law.

Thanks again! :D

@Jaeae An

You obviously do not understand mental illness and its various forms.

No, Japanese wives commit suicide due to marital disputes.

Huh? You are contradicting yourself. Previously you specifically stated:

There is no doubt that japanese wives had committed suicides over marital disputes.

So were you "correct" when you said that they did? Or are you "correct" now that you say that they don't?

.... why would anyone commit suicides?

Already answered: Mental disorders. I suggest that you do some research into mental health issues.... Or do you dispute that such things exist? Have you heard of postpartum-depression? How about other forms of mental disorders?

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2012/02/12/commentary/depression-is-a-national-ailment-that-demands-open-recognition-in-japan/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3184569/

How about mothers that kill their children? Or abandon them to die? Are they acting "normal" too?

http://www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/mother-gets-30-years-for-letting-kids-starve-to-death

Japense wives or people or Asians do not commit suicides over mental illness.

Really? Then why are they committing suicide? Because they are bastions of mental health?

the fact that people abuse political powers in helping their country men getting the custody over their children is ACT OF BULLYING.

That you for acknowledging that Japan is a bully on this issue.

Children, by the time they get old and mature enough to decide their future, should be able to choose which parent or country they would like to reside with.

By then the damage is already done. Again, I suggest that you do some research:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120612101338.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2518247/Growing-father-permanently-alter-BRAIN-Fatherless-children-likely-grow-angry-turn-drugs.html

I believe Children should stay with mothers except for some extreme circumstances which are often caused by the husbands.

It is nice to have opinions. Unfortunately, your opinion is based on logical fallacy. This is not an "either or" situation, except for people who are too selfish to actually act mature and put what is actually best for their children first. Mature adults can actually work together to both support and mutually raise children despite being separated. It is immature parents who have to have complete control, shut out the other parent, and ignore what is actually in the best interests of the child.

This article is only about ANGRY WESTERN DIVORCED HUSBANDS WHO DESTROY lives of foreign wives and still want to still the children.

Again, I suggest that you do some actual research. There are many Japanese parents, both mothers and fathers, who are asking for Gaiatsu in order to fix what is fundamentally a Japan problem.

Check out the Kimidori Ribbon Project ( http://kimidori-ribbon.org/ ), and other Japan-based groups. Like those started by Japanese mothers like Masako:

< http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Japan+black+hole+abducted+children/8801632/story.html>

Fundamentally, this is about a Japanese system that is still stuck in the dark ages, ignores science, and doesn't live up to it's international and human right commitments.

@CH3CHO:

congressman - "By far, the greatest number of abduction cases takes place in Japan..."

CH3CHO: The largest number of parental child abductions from the US takes place in or into Mexico.

What the congressman was referring to was unresolved cases. There is actually a mechanism to resolve cases with Mexico. However, there is no such mechanism to resolve cases with Japan.

The USA is the world leader of international child abduction...

Nonsense. As someone else pointed out, you are representing the report; both in meaning and context.

Abducting a child out of Japan is a criminal offence in Japan....

Then Japan is in violation of yet another treaty agreement. I mean, they are already in violation of several UN human rights treaties -- like the UNCERD, UNCRC, UNCAT, etc (which I know you like to ignore). But if "Abducting a child out of Japan is a 'criminal offense' in Japan" that means that Japan is also in violation of the 1980 extradition treaty that they entered into with the US. Because Japan has been claiming for over a decade that parental abduction is not a crime. That has been the Government of Japan's "excuse" for refusing to extradite parental abductors back to the US.

SO... either it isn't a crime. Or the Government is lying (in violation of their treaty obligations). You can't have it both ways.

@CH3CHO & @hokkaidoguy

It is just amazing that there are so many people here who cannot accept the simple fact that America is the largest child abductor in the world.

Apparently when white people do it it's not "abduction"...

I'm sorry, how many abducted children has the Japanese government returned? Oh yeah... ZERO. How many foreign parents has the Japanese government ensured have access to their children after a Japanese spouse abducts them? Oh yeah... ZERO.

@Jaeae An

There is no doubt that japanese wives had committed suicides over marital disputes.

a) This points to mental issues -- mental issues that very likely led to the original "marital disputes".

b) I know of several Japanese fathers who committed suicide due to the depression they suffered after having their Japanese wives abduct their children.

c) Shouldn't the children, and what is best for them, actually matter? Because all the research shows that they benefit most from maintaining a relationship with both parents (except in extreme circumstances).

@SpeaklikeGandhi

Why the U.S. House of Representatives have anything to do with this private matter of the Americans?

Because is ceased being a "private matter" once the Japanese government started participating in the process. It is the Japanese Government that is condoning, 'rubber stamping', defending and, in some cases, even proactively assisting in abductions from the US.

@ to all of you defending the practice of "parental abduction" to/within Japan:

Don't you people actually care about the victim children involved? Don't they matter?

@kimu

You seem to be letting your personal experience override your ability to see the bigger picture...

Earlier, you attempted to disregard the half dozen or so cases I mentioned on the grounds that they were "anecdotal". Now your response is to provide a single "anecdotal" story in order to justify child abduction.

...I suppose by your standards, I Should not have done that, right?

Ideally, no. But life isn't always ideal.

Ideally, you would have used a legal process. Unfortunately, this is another area that Japan is lacking. But rather than supporting legal reform, which would actually do a better job of protecting everyone overall, you instead continue to advocate for leaving the system as is.

I would think that, given your personal experience, you would actually support reform. I mean, wouldn't it be better for Japan to improve its system so that any parent ( DV can go either direction, and when it exists, is generally, but not always, reciprocal ) who is actually a victim doesn't have to "[run] away, leaving most of [their] clothes, photos and valuables". And also protects children from potentially being taken away either by the more abusive parent, or a parent merely being "horrible, immature, selfish"?

Wouldn't reform actually be the best solution to handle all the various types of situations?

Because the way that the Japanese system is set up now, the focus isn't' on making sure that children are protected. This simple fact doesn't seem to bother you. Why can't you support a system where protecting the children is the focus?

What if someone were in the same type of situation that you claim to have been in, but it was the abusive spouse took the children first? Or if your husband had simply kicked you out and kept the kids?

Because I know a few mothers in Japan who had exactly that happen to them. And you are defending the broken system that is continuing to deny those victim-mothers access to their children.

...despite me being her "horrible, immature, selfish" abductor mother...

Sorry, this is just a logical fallacy. You have created a strawman argument. You claim that your case was one of actual abuse. I pointed to a series of cases that were otherwise. In the real world, I would expect evidence of such claims before taking a position, but for the purposes of our discussion, we can assume the facts of your case are as stated.

What should we say to them? "Sorry, you're screwed. You didn't grab the kids first, so now you just have to live without getting to see them, and knowing that they are growing up in a potentially abusive environment."

What about those kids? Are they off not seeing their mothers?

Is that really your solution?

Can't you see that:

The current Japanese system encourages child abduction.

It also encourages lying.

It also doesn't protect children properly.

btw - in the case I mentioned where the mother had self admitted in US court that she was the abusive one: after she abducted to Japan she started claiming that she was the abuse "victim". Eventually, once the father was able to present his case to the Japanese court and provided the documents from US court, which include the mother's self-admission of being the parent with abusive behavior, the mother admitted that she had lied to the Japanese court and made up her "victim of abuse" claim. Because, you know, people can lie. Not all claims of abuse are true. http://www.saveservices.org/reports/

She also admitted that she had committed various other forms of fraud within the Japanese court system. However, the Japanese court has none-the-less continued to leave the child with her. Because, again, they have no real way to enforce a custody change.

a hell of a lot more than you do...

Now you are just being emotional. You have no idea what my personal experience is.

For you to call me a BAD parent...

This is another strawman argument. I called you no such thing.

@kimu

Why on earth would you assume the other parent is "good," just because they want custody of their children?

Why on earth would you assume that the abducting parent is "good", just because they abducted their child?

We already discussed several cases where the child was abducted merely for "immature, selfish, etc." reasons.

I will ask yet again, have you actually looked at any of the sources that I provided above that pointed to parentally abducted kids who are now adults and speaking out about their experience?

The Japanese system DOES take into account which parent is better...

This is simply NOT true. Do you have personal experience with the Japanese custody system? There is no enforcement. Abduction basically wins -- ask any honest attorney.

It is believed to be better for the child in Japan, that a child is with one parent exclusively, on both a legal and societal level.

People also used to think that the world was flat. A belief doesn't make something a fact. And ignoring science, doesn't mean that the science isn't correct... and science currently states that children, except in extreme cases, are better off maintaining a relationship with both parents.

That is nothing any of us can change.

Can't never did.

Weren't you the one saying earlier that you would do anything for your children? If it were your children that were abducted, wouldn't you fight to fix the system?

ps. my step-sister was parentally abducted by her mother. It was NOT a good experience for her.

So I am familiar with this issue from many angles.

@Kimu

There are also going to be a huge number of these stories that go unreported - where the father just doesn't care and does not inform the authorities his wife has run away back to Japan.

You seem to be missing your own point.

By your own definition, then those aren't relevant in this discussion. The scenarios you presented aren't the cases we are talking about - as you said, they aren't reported, "the father just doesn't care".

What we are talking about the case where the cases that are reported. Where the father (or mother) does care.

So basically, you are supporting a system of abduction that only benefits the "immature, selfish, etc." That allows such people to take kids from loving parents who do care. Who might even be a better parent.

The Japanese system doesn't look at which parent is actually better.

It doesn't make sure that parents who are good parents can maintain a relationship with the children.

But it does allow "immature, selfish, etc." parents to rip children away from good parents with impunity.

Don't you see something wrong with that?

@kimu

Again you "suspect", but you aren't basing your info are actual data. And the actual data doesn't support your "suspicions"

Did you actually bother to look at anything of the sources I provided links to?

Do you think that Masako's husband was running from "DV" when he abducted their son back to Japan after they had already divorced with joint custody and living apart?

Or what about Japanese husband who abducted back to Japan from the American mother in Utah?

Or the American husband who got a new Japanese girlfriend and abducted the kids from the US back to Japan, abandoning his Japanese wife in the US?

Or the Japanese woman who admitted in court during the divorce that she was abusive, violent and drinking and medicating too much and therefore the American father had primary custody (and the woman had frequent and enforceable visitation) for 3 years before she abducted the child back to Japan? Was she protecting the child? Who from? She was the self-admitted violent parent.

Or the Japanese mother suffering from postpartum depression, abducted the child, and then ultimately killed herself - thereafter the Grandmother continued to deny the father access?

Or the pregnant Japanese mother who got depressed because her first son was sick, and then abandoned the sick son and Western father (all of whom were in Japan) when she got pregnant again? The Western father continued taking care of the sick son until he eventually passed away.

I could go on...

Seriously, isn't it possible in your world view to even consider the possibility that the abductor might simply be immature, selfish, and/or mental unstable? Because the data, if you would actually look at it, shows that in most cases that is the reality.

Question for the "Abduction Apologist" crowd.

What do you think happens when a child goes to the abducting parent and asks where the non-abducting parent is?

What do you think happens when a child tells the abducting parent that they want to see and talk to the non-abducting parent?

How is it that you think that the child's interests are being protected by the abducting parent?

Have any of you ever talked to these kids after they have grown up and learned that the non-abducting parent didn't abandon them, that they were abducted and kept from the non-abducting parent?

Because I have. Also, as I posted before... you should look at www.takeroot.org they are abducted children now grown up.

Also, check out http://youtu.be/o4Qh_PF9rW0 and see what the girl has to say about her mother that abducted her.

These kids grow up... and once the learn the truth, they tend to get very angry at the abducting parent. The abductors are being selfish. They are not looking out for the children.

Here is an abductor, she brags about how it was just a game to her: http://youtu.be/8nG2plrH5HQ?t=4m2s

If you listen to her "reasoning", it has nothing to do with what was best for the child - it was just about what she wanted. A combination of selfishness and revenge.

THAT is the true cause of most parental abductions (as noted in the Government reports I linked to above).

ps: @Nigelboy

So it's all about the "left behind parents" after all. That didn't take long. That's my point all long, smith.

Way to create a total strawman.

@Kimu

A few points:

a) Your 'feelings' about this issue do not match the empirical data.

studies show that fathers are just as important, and in some cases more so. your 'feelings' ignore the impact on the child. your perception of how custody has been handled through history is wrong.

(I've already posted a bunch of links about most of this above)

b) You don't seem to fully understand the issue.

Japan is protecting abduction; no more, no less.

Just ask Masako, she's been cut off from her son for years: http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201006220385.html

I also suggest you watch this: http://youtu.be/P3g3g_0r01c

Then come back and let's talk about the Japanese System.

Not convinced. Sorry.

Well, I've posted numerous sources above supporting my assertion: government reports; victim groups; etc.

So if you are going to simply disregard the facts...

Did you mention it?

I also didn't mention that man has gone to the moon.... But, fair enough, if that is how you want to play it.

What about you ignoring:

That most cases of parental abduction do not fit that scenario.

That in those majority of cases which don't fit it, the abduction is strictly an act of child abuse by a selfish kidnapper.

That in the vast majority of cases there are other resources other than abduction.

That reforming Japanese law properly will address both situations; whereas your position of continuing support the 'status quo' system continues to leave the majority of children as victims.

That the Japanese system does ignore the best interests of the child; instead representing the best interests of abductors.

etc, etc, etc.

You, on the other hand, are completely ignoring the possibility that the left behind parent could actually be a bad/abusive/unstable/controlling individual...

Please demonstrate where I ignore the possibility? Seem more like another strawman argument.

And how about actually responding to the points that I made.

There is massive amount of flawed thinking being presented here by the "abduction apologist" crowd.

Some of the more egregious arguments they are presenting:

1) The child is better off with the mother by the mere virtue that she is the mother.

First, the whole frame of this is a logical fallacy called "False Dilemma". The argument assumes that the child can be with either only the mother or with only the father. It precludes the that there exists the very real option that the child can maintain a relationship with both.

Second, the argument ignores the very real possibility that in any given situation that the mother might not be the more responsible parent.

For anecdotal support, just monitor the Japan Today 'Crime' section on any given day. You will frequently see stories reflecting neglect and/or abuse of children. The vast majority of these are at the hand of mothers, or the boyfriends of single mothers.

For support from hard data I will refer you to the US Dept. of Health and Human Services 2011 Child Maltreatment Report: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm11.pdf Exhibit 3–H Victims by Perpetrator Relationship:

Perpetrator Father: 19% Mother: 36.8%

Exhibit 4–E Child Fatalities by Perpetrator Relationship:

Perpetrator Father: 15.3% Mother: 26.4%

This doesn't mean mothers are worse than fathers, nor vice versa. It does mean that to assume the mother is the best option, simply because she is the mother, completely disregards the realities of the available data.

Third, it continues to ignore the fact that Parental Abduction is child abuse.

The mere act of abducting the child and severing the parent-child relationship from the non-abducting parent demonstrates a disregard for the wellbeing of the child's best interests and the child's identity. (see references I provided in previous post).

Fourth, the Japanese system isn't protecting the mother - it is protecting the abductor. I know of several mothers who have been cut off from their children by fathers who abducted. If fact, I know of cases where sibling relationships have been severed by abduction.

2) The non-abducting parent, by seeking to get the child returned, is merely being selfish and isn't looking out for the best interests of the child.

Way to flip reality on its head. This is based on some seriously flawed thinking.

First, it completely ignores the possibility that the abducting parent could actually be a bad/abusive/unstable parent. In fact, considering that parental kidnapping is a form of child abuse, the abducting parent has already demonstrated that they are comfortable with putting their interests ahead of those of the child. Not only that, but research shows that a willingness to subjugate the interests of the child by becoming a parental kidnapper is often tied to various psychological complexes (ie. narcissism, borderline-personality disorders, sociopathic disorders, etc. http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/archive/documents/riskfactors.pdf )

Don't forget, this kidnappings are not merely unilaterally relocating the children, there are also completely severing the child from the relationship with the other parent, and all that entails. The kidnapping parent isn't concerned about the "best interests of the child", they are concerned with personal control of the child. They are treating the child as a possession, not as human beings.

How, pray tell, can one seriously claim that leaving the child in such an environment is in the child's "best interest"? This whole line of thinking is akin to claiming that hostages should be left with their captors because the hostages have since been forced to adapt to having been taken hostage in the first place.

Second, it ignores the reality that Japanese system provides ZERO protections for the parent-child relationship. So as long as the child remains in Japan, the abducting parent can continue to interfere with the parent-child relationship between the child and the non-abducting parent with complete impunity. How, pray tell, is this is the "best interests" of the child?

Third, it ignores the "bigger picture". By not enforcing returns, you essentially reward the behavior of abducting children. This merely perpetuates the problem and puts more children at risk of being future victims of parental kidnapping.

To the "abduction apologists":

What research do you have to support your position that leaving the child in the post-abduction "status quo" is more beneficial than returning the child to an environment where the right of the child have a relationship with both parents is protected?

Bottom line:

the root cause of the problem is the outdated family court system still in place in Japan. Fix that and 90%+ of the problems will go away.

If you really care about the children's "best interests", then stop trying to defend the indefensible. Instead start actually defending the rights of the children and calling for reform of the Japanese Family Law system.

@Kazuaki Shimazaki, et al.

Are you sure? The child's already abducted to Japan. That's wrong but at this point it is already done. Maybe he or she is starting to get acclimatized by the time 2nd parent really gets moving. The child's best interest is a "counter-uproot"? Really?

There are several issues with your statement. Here are just a few of them:

1) One of the best ways to stop these abductions is to stop rewarding the abductors.

2) That is part of why returns are supposed to happen within 6 weeks - to minimize the disruption to the child.

3) Your point is still ignoring the importance of the child to have access to both parents.

Remember that while modern theory may say the best chance is two parents, many single-parented children have come up right.

So are you suggesting that because some exceptions exist, we should ignore the rule? That because some children have "made it out alive", so to speak, that we should abandon the effort (and the rest of the children) to fix the problem?

The difference is likely not decisive, maybe a few percent better on the side of having two parents. Are you sure the statistics would support a better outcome even after a counter-uproot?

You sound like you are merely guessing. I suggest that you actually do some research. Uninformed opinions are just that.

Here are some sources to get you started:

http://takeroot.org/ - an organization started by adults who were parentally abducted as children.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120612101338.htm - there was an extremely robust international study that strongly disagrees with your guess. The study showed: "A father's love contributes as much -- and sometimes more -- to a child's development as does a mother's love. That is one of many findings in a new large-scale analysis of research about the power of parental rejection and acceptance in shaping our personalities as children and into adulthood."

http://goo.gl/ROpLzT - Study: YOUNG ADULTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON DIVORCE Living Arrangements (hint: they wanted more time with Dad)

http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsInfo/content/pdf/HarmfulEffectsOfParentalAbduction.pdf

That the difference is great enough we should not look at individual cases, but just apply a flat "optimal" norm?

This statement is merely a strawman argument.

Most modern countries have attempted to update their family law system to match what we have learned about what does/doesn't work and what studies show is actually in the best interests of the child.

Meanwhile, Japan has effectively stayed in the "dark ages" of an outdated family law model. Which, rather than protecting children, is actually protecting parental abductors - at the expense of the best interests of the child.

If a parent is willing to subject a child to the kind of potential long-term trauma that abduction, and severing the child from the other parent, can cause - They have already demonstrated that they have put their own self-interests before that of the child's.

they are protected by a lack of domestic law.

Actually, the law is there... but, like many things in japan, not (or selectively) enforced.

Don't forget... Japan ratified the UN Convention on the rights of the child about 20 years ago.

That treaty already provides against parental abduction and for the right of the child to have a relationship with both parents (even if they live in different countries). Japan has ignored that treaty for almost 20 years - even though the Japanese constitution, under article 97, states that such treaties are law.

So Japan's system promotes: child abuse, human rights violation, and treaty violation.

@CH3CHO

It is Japan who is ignoring the best interests of the child.

Japan's system not only supports, but encourages child abduction -- which is a form of abuse.

Children have rights; including the right to have a relationship with both parents.

The Japanese system ignores those rights.

@sfjp330

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://youtu.be/P3g3g_0r01c

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

@sfjp330

You continue to deflect from the actual issue of custody.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would you say that?

Because:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are also shortage of public day care centers

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

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

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

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

Children deserve protection.

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

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

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

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

Aren't you doing exactly that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@sfjp330

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@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.

Seriously?

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

Please Japan, wake up!

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

@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

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.