Enforcement measures eyed to settle child custody battles

The Mainichi

Enforcement measures eyed to settle child custody battles

TOKYO (Kyodo) — An advisory panel to the Japanese Justice Ministry proposed Friday that measures be enforced on divorced parents who take custody of their children against a court order to pay fines.

If the parents continue to refuse to let the children go, court officials will be entitled to take away the children, the panel said in an interim report on the reform of the nation’s child custody system.

The proposal has been made at a time when critics are criticizing the inconsistency between the state’s handling of such disputes between domestic and international marriages as the latter were already subject to rules of the so-called Hague treaty.

Japan in 2014 acceded to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which sets out rules and procedures for the prompt return to the country of habitual residence of children under 16 taken or retained by one parent, if requested by the other parent.

The Justice Ministry plans to solicit public comments on the report later this month. After reporting the outcome to the panel, the ministry is expected to submit a bill to revise the civil execution law to the Diet in 2018 at the earliest.

There is currently no stipulation in Japan’s legal system regarding parents who do not abide by a court order to give away children to their former marital partners. Such disputes have been handled based on regulations regarding the seizure of assets.

According to the proposal in the interim report, divorced parents who refuse to give away their children in defiance of a court order will be fined until their surrender to encourage them to voluntarily abide by the court decision.

If the parents continue to ignore the court order for two weeks, court officials will be allowed to take away the children and put them in the hands of the other parents.

If divorced parents fail to pay expenses to raise children, the report also proposes enabling courts to make inquiries to financial institutions on information about such parents’ financial assets.

Source:  “Enforcement measures eyed to settle child custody battles”, The Mainichi, 9 September 2017 

Advertisements

Japanese family law “incompatible” with Hague Convention

There was a telling article published in the International Academic Forum’s Journal of Asian Studies Summer 2017 issue.  The author, Takeshi Hamano, of the University of Kitakyushu, spells out why the ratification of the Hague Convention has had a limited impact – because domestic Japanese family law is “incompatible” with the principle of the Convention.

I set out, below, the abstract and, below that, a link to the article itself – it is not a subscription website:

Author: Takeshi Hamano, University of Kitakyushu, Japan
Email: ian.mcarthur@sydney.edu.au
Published: August 4, 2017
https://doi.org/10.22492/ijas.3.1.03

Citation: Hamano, T. (2017). The Aftermath of Japan’s Ratification of the Hague Convention on Child Abduction: An Investigation into the State Apparatus of the Modern Japanese Family. IAFOR Journal of Asian Studies, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.22492/ijas.3.1.03


Abstract

The aim of this paper is to discuss the ways in which a recent international dispute has evoked an inquiry about the family ideology of modern Japan. Initially, it explains a recent issue on Japan’s ratification to the Hague Convention on child abduction. In April 2014, the Japanese government finally ratified the Hague Convention on child abduction, an international Convention to resolve disputes on international parental child abduction. However, skepticism toward Japan still remains, because, in order to put the international Convention into practice, Japan has not proceed to radical family law reform at this stage. To recognize this incongruent situation, this paper explains that the present Japanese family law is incompatible with the principle of this international Convention. Although the Convention premises shared parenting in the grant of joint child custody even after divorce, Japanese family law keeps the solo-custody approach, which is necessarily preserved in order to maintain Japan’s unique family registration system: the koseki system. Arguing that the koseki system, registering all nationals by family unit, is an ideological state apparatus of Japan as a modern nation state since the nineteenth century, this paper concludes that recent international disputes regarding parental child abduction in Japan inquires about a radical question on national family norm of Japan.

Keywords

Japan, family, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, child custody, koseki

Link to article:  http://iafor.org/archives/journals/iafor-journal-of-asian-studies/10.22492.ijas.3.1.03.pdf

New international family law convention proposed

New international family law convention proposed

Hague Convention
If created, the new international treaty would join the three existing Hague Conventions on family law matters – the 1980 Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; the 1996 Convention on Parental Responsibility and Protection of Children; and the 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance.

Hague Conventions derive their name from the Dutch city of Den Haag (The Hague), where the first was signed as long ago as 1899. Since 1951 38 Conventions on different aspects of “private international law” have been created.

An expert’s group had been drawn together to explore issues surrounding the enforcement in participating countries of legal orders and agreements concerning children made in other participating states. Following their investigations they proposed the creation of the brand new Convention to facilitate this process and add value to the three earlier family law Hague Conventions.

A situation in which a family order made in one country is generally recognised and enforced in other nations was in the best interests of children they declared.

The three existing family law Conventions do not address longer term family arrangements – for example, child maintenance or contact, or other financial issues, including property. If created, the new Convention would provide an efficient and simple method for cross-border enforcement of such matters.

Stowe Family Law Web Team

View more from this author

 

Source:  “New international family law convention proposed”, Stowe Family Law Blog, 16 July 2017

Judge writes personal letter to teen after High Court battle

BBC

Judge writes personal letter to teen after High Court battleAn envelopeImage copyright

A judge has written a personal letter to a 14-year-old boy explaining why he has rejected his request to move with his father to Scandinavia.

Mr Justice Jackson said he felt the teenager had brought the case to the High Court “as a way of showing your dad how much you love him”.

He told the boy he was “doing well in life” and did not believe that the move abroad would work.

He said: “I am confident that it is the right order for you in the long run.”

Mr Justice Jackson, who is based in the Family Division of the High Court in London, wrote the letter to the teenager which laid down his ruling after a hearing in July.

Sam, not his real name, had applied for permission to live with his father in a Scandinavian country, which his mother and step-father opposed.

The application was later taken over by his dad.

‘Duty by your dad’

In the letter, the judge told the boy he believed “that your feelings are that you love everyone in your family very much, just as they love you”.

However, he noted that Sam’s parents had “very different personalities” and the fact they found it hard to agree was “stressful for you”.

In the letter, the judge said he found Sam’s dad to be someone who was “troubled” and had a “lot of influence over you”.

“All fathers influence their sons, but your father goes a lot further than that. I’m quite clear that if he was happy with the present arrangements, you probably would be too. Because he isn’t, you aren’t.”

He questioned whether the idea for the proceedings came from Sam or his dad and said he believed the teenager had “brought the proceedings mainly as a way of showing your dad how much you love him”.

‘Lost sight’

He told the teenager: “Also, I may be wrong, but when you gave your evidence I didn’t get the feeling that you actually see your future in Scandinavia at all.

“Instead, what I saw was you doing your duty by your dad while trying not to be too unfair to your mum. But you still felt you had to boost your dad wherever you could.

“That’s how subtle and not-so-subtle pressure works. So I respect your views, but I don’t take them at face value because I think they are significantly formed by your loyalty to your father.”

The judge said Sam’s dad had a “manipulative side” and has “in some ways lost sight of what was best” for his son.

He told the boy he had no confidence that a move to Scandinavia would work and hoped his dad would decide to stay in England “for your sake”.

‘Justice was done’

The judge said the evidence showed Sam was doing well in life in England and that he “should make the most of the many opportunities that life here has to offer you”.

He went on: “If, when you finish your A-levels, you want to move to Scandinavia, you will be 18 and an adult – it will be up to you.”

Mr Justice Jackson dismissed his dad’s application to take Sam to live in Scandinavia and for Sam to apply for citizenship there.

He ruled that Sam would have contact with his dad on alternate weekends and any arrangement after he moved to Scandinavia alone would have to be agreed between both parents.

In the letter, he added: “Whatever each of your parents might think about it, I hope they have the dignity not to impose their views on you, so that you can work things out for yourself.”

The judge finished by saying he and Sam’s dad had enjoyed finding out they loved the film My Cousin Vinny – but for different reasons.

“He mentioned it as an example of a miscarriage of justice, while I remember it for the best courtroom scenes in any film, and the fact that justice was done in the end.”

Source:  “Judge writes personal letter to teen after High Court battle”, BBC News, 27 July 2017

Brexit could lead to rise in parental child abductions, warn legal experts

Image result for independent newspaper logo

Brexit could lead to rise in parental child abductions, warn legal experts

‘One year on from the referendum, it is clear it is having an impact on family life’

Brexit could lead to a rise in the number of parents abducting their children and taking them overseas, a law firm has claimed.

Lawyers said the firm had already seen a spike in inquiries from parents about disputes over travel plans and applications for dual citizenship, as well as fears their children would not be returned home from overseas visits.

Cara Nuttall, who specialises in matters relating to children, including abductions, said her firm JMW Solicitors, had received 30 per cent more inquiries in the three months to the end of June compared with the same period last year.

“One year on from the referendum, it is clear that Brexit is having an impact on family life where one or both parents is from the EU,” she said.

“We have seen a significant increase over recent weeks in the number of parents in rocky relationships or who are already separated or divorced seeking advice about their rights to relocate, or to stop the other parent from travelling because they are scared they may not come back with the children.

Ms Nuttall, a partner at the Manchester-based firm, added: ”We have also seen a rise in disputes about applications for foreign nationality and travel documents for children entitled to dual citizenship in fragile international families.

“Some foreign parents feel strongly they want to maximise their chances of being able to return home if things don’t work out, while British parents are concerned about them doing exactly that, and want to make it harder for them to take the children should they wish to do so.”

She also warned it expected to see even more of these cases over the summer months.

She said:  “It is clear that the uncertainty caused by Brexit has led to discussions in these families about the future, leaving some parents feeling extremely vulnerable when they realise they have diverging views.

“The inevitable temptation is to consider taking matters into their own hands and just go.”

Ms Nuttall said the framework in place to deal with parental abductions in Europe might not stay in place after Brexit.

She said: “We simply do not know what the replacement measures will be, nor how well they will work.”

Criminal law commissioner Professor David Ormerod QC said the laws to prevent child abductions were not “fit for purpose”.

“At least 300 British children a year are unlawfully retained overseas and the problem is growing,” he said.

“Whatever the implications of Brexit, we’d urge Parliament to consider our recommendations to double the maximum sentences for these offences to 14 years’ imprisonment and to close a legal loophole around the wrongful detention of children abroad.”

It comes as multiple reports suggested the UK would maintain free movement for EU citizens for up to four years after Brexit.

Theresa May is ready to offer free movement for two years, according to The Times, while The Guardian quoted a senior cabinet source as saying the period could last for three or even four years.

Philip Hammond was said to be confident he has won support within the Cabinet for a transition to prevent disruption to business caused by a sudden “cliff-edge” move to new arrangements on 29 March 2019, when Britain is set to leave the EU.

Additional reporting by Press Association

Source:  “Brexit could lead to rise in parental child abductions, warn legal experts”, The Independent, 25 July 2017