Today we read about a father from the U.S., who shared joint custody of his children with his Japanese wife. Notwithstanding concerns on the part of the father that the mother would not return to the U.S. if the mother were permitted to travel with the children to Japan, in a monumental moment of arrogance and stupidity, the Presiding Judge, Jim Martin in Franklin, Tennessee, permitted the mother to take the two children, aged 6 and 8, back to Japan for a summer holiday.
What happened? Yes, the mother refused to return. Worse, when the father went to Japan to try and bring his children home, after obtaining a sole custody order in the U.S., he was arrested for child abduction in Japan.
The fundamental problem? What Judge Martin either was ignorant of, or didn't care about, Japan is not a signatory to what is called the "1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction". This is a treaty where all signatories agree that the law of the place the children had their most clear connection applies to make decisions regarding their custody. All of these countries have committed that if a child is abducted from their place of residence, they will defer to the Orders of that jurisdiction regarding child custody, except in cases where there is demonstrated risk of harm to the child.
Japan? Not a signatory.
A list of countries that are signatories is here: Hague Signatories
Based upon previous history, it appears highly unlikely that the American government will be successful in seeking return of the children based upon previous cases, so, a little advice.
If you are separated from the parent of your children, be careful to review the countries who are signatories to the convention. If they are originally from any country NOT on that list, be very careful about allowing them to take the children outside of Canada or the U.S. - even to other convention countries, as travel plans can be easily changed en route.
Make sure your lawyer, and any Judge hearing your case, is made very aware of the fact that the other parent's country is NOT a Hague Signatory, and, in general, my advice would be to NEVER agree to your children being removed from your own country where the other party has significant family ties in a non-signatory country.
Perhaps if the message is sent clear and loud to countries like Japan that their nationals living outside of Japan will NEVER be permitted to visit Japan with their children, perhaps they will reconsider their decision not to commit to the Hague convention.
You may be surprised to know that the convention countries include China, Chile, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela.. countries NOT signing the convention include Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and, obviously, Japan.
Nice company Japan. Way to go.
The nation of Japan should be duly shamed by this story, and, sadly, my advise to all parents of Japanese-Canadian children? NEVER allow your children to visit family in Japan. At least not until their government gets their head out of their ass and signs on to the convention.
2 comments:
Japan, as you know, has always had a certain perverted xenophobia about it. It's a shame that it has to spill over into family life.
..and it isn't about "Japanese" people, per se, it's, as usual, about government.
I'm certain, if they stopped to think about it, the idea that other countries were discriminating against their own nationals based upon their refusal to buy into the convention, they would perhaps reconsider..
Post a Comment