Japan to sign Hague Treaty on Kids

Source: http://www.japaninc.com/tt469

Two weeks ago, the Japanese government made a notable announcement that may make Japan more compatible with the legal conventions used internationally, and will be of particular benefit to non-Japanese spouses of Japanese.
The announcement was that by 2010, Japan would sign the the 1980 Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, an international legal construct that attempts to deal with the thorny issue of court jurisdiction when children of international marriages are moved cross-border, often by a parent trying to thwart a court ruling in the previous jurisdiction.
Currently, Japan is known as a haven for disaffected Japanese spouses who, in getting divorced, abscond with their kids back to Japan. Once in Japan they can dare their foreign spouses to try getting the kids back — something that despite around 13,000 international divorces a year in Japan and more overseas, has NEVER happened.
The reason for this astounding statistic, that of zero repatriations of abducted children from international marriages after the kids have been abducted to Japan, is entirely to do with the attitudes of the Japanese judiciary and their wish to maintain 19th Century customs in the face of international pressure. Japan has ratified many parts of the Hague Convention treaties over the years, but in terms of repatriation of kids, they have been claiming for 20 years now to be « studying » the issue. That’s Japan-speak for « we’re not interested in making any changes ».
Our guess is that the recent announcement occurred after pressure from the USA and Canada, in particular. Things started to come to a head about 5 years ago, when fed up by repeating occurences of child abductions from both of those countries, and despite court decisions there for custody to go to the local parent, the consular staff of a number of these foreign embassies started holding annual summits to discuss the problem. These discussions escalated to pressure on foreign governmental agencies and politicians in some of Japan’s biggest trading partners — and finally someone spoke to the Japanese government at a sufficiently high enough level to get their attention.
The subject became especially sensitive when the Japanese were at the peak of their indignation over the North Korean abductions of Japanese citizens several years ago, and were seeking international support. All the while, Japanese law allowed similar types of abductions here.
In case you’re not up on the state of play, there were 44,000 international marriages registered in Japan in 2006, and probably a good percentage of that number again of Japanese marrying overseas but not bothering to register back in Japan. The divorce rate within Japan is about 30%, and for Japanese living overseas (take the US as an example), it is typical of the local population, so more like 50%-60%. Thus there are a lot of international separations — many of which are not amicable.
But it’s when the kids are involved that things start getting really nasty. Usually in the case of a divorced international couple going to court overseas and after custody is awarded, if one of the parents fears a possible adbuction situation, the couple can be placed under a restraining order not to travel without the other spouse’s consent. The USA, Canada, Australia, and UK all do this. The kids’ passports will often be withheld as well. Unfortunately, there have been a number of cases where the Japanese spouse then « loses » the kids Japanese passports and applies to the local consulate for replacements — only to hop a flight back to Tokyo a few hours later, with the kids in tow.
Once in Japan, the jurisdiction suddenly falls to the Japanese courts, even if there is a foreign arrest warrant out for the absconding partner, and in several cases, even if there is an Interpol arrest warrant out. In Japan, there is no concept of joint custody, and the partner allowed to keep the kids is the one that has held them for the previous few months.
The courts’ opinion here is that kids need a stable environment, and the act of being the only guardian for a period of time, even if that guardian was in hiding, qualifies for this — unless the kids are under 5 years old, in which case they will typically be returned to the mother (if the father is the abscondee), or to the father if the mother has deceased. But not always. There are cases where the Japanese mother has died and the Japanese grandparents have kept the kids, instead of returning them to the foreign father. You can read more about this sad state of affairs at http://www.crnjapan.com/en/.
You won’t believe that this kind of thing is still going on in a first-world country like Japan in the 21st century.
The Japanese court attitude thereby encourages Japanese spouses wanting to hang on to their kids to hightail it back to Japan and lie low for 6 months. Currently there has been no case, even after the Japanese Supreme Court has awarded rightful custody to the foreign parent, where that aggrieved foreign parent has been able to go get their kids back. The reason is quite simply that Japan doesn’t have a mechanism for properly enforcing civil suit judgments, and typically a breach of an order in a civil suit does not result in the offender being subject to a subsequent criminal suit.
Thus, the Hague Convention on child abduction provides a mechanism whereby if children are illegally removed from their country of habitual residence, they must be returned, and the jurisdiction for subsequent court decisions is taken out of the hands of the Japanese courts. This is the first step in making international court rulings involving kids, stick.
We believe that this is going to be a long and slow process, but once the treaty is signed and the first few cases start to be heard, either the kids involved will be returned or the parent trying to hang on to them will create an international brouhaha that will highlight to the world the lack of protection of rights for international parents here in Japan. Who knows, maybe this will start another process — that of allowing foreigners actually residing within Japan to also regain the simple right of access to their children after a divorce.
But in reality we think this level of change will take several more generations and a lot more foreigners living in Japan to achieve…

La famille au Japon – Réfléchir au bonheur de l’enfant après le divorce

Le bonheur de l’enfant est au coeur des préoccupations de conférences et de symposiums de plus en plus nombreux, comme celui récent sur « Le divorce et l’enfant, réfléchir au droit de garde partagé », thème d’un symposium organisé par la Fédération des association du barreau japonais (nichibenren).

Le droit de l’enfant au bonheur est un droit inaliénable mais celui-ci rencontre au Japon deux difficultés majeures :

  • le droit de garde unique qui peut couper l’enfant de son deuxième parent jusqu’à la majorité ;
  • l’absence du droit de visite inscrit dans la loi qui dans les faits se traduit par 20 % de droits de visite, sans recours de justice qui permette de remédier à la non-présentation d’enfant.

Cette amorce de nouvelle réflexion marque le début d’un changement absolument extraordinaire, alors que des dizaines de milliers de parents divorcés au Japon sont pratiquement coupés de leur enfant depuis des années, dont trente à quarante pères et mères françaises, et peut-être bien davantage de parents français, qui ont perdu tout espoir et ne se signalent plus.

L’Allemagne, la France, les USA, l’Angleterre et l’Italie ont servi de comparaison au cours de ce symposium en termes du droit de la famille sur l’autorité parentale et la garde partagée.

Tous ces pays, et récemment plus proches du Japon, la Chine et la Corée ont fait des avancées qui vont dans le sens d’un droit familial qui permette à l’enfant l’accès à deux parents, ses grands-parents, et dans le cas de couples internationaux, l’accès à deux langues et deux cultures, deux pays.

Alors que se célèbre le 150e anniversaire des relations diplomatiques entre nos deux pays, je souhaite déployer toute mon énergie pour faire progresser ce dossier douloureux des relations franco-japonaises, en m’appuyant sur nos contacts politiques au Parlement japonais (Diète) et en travaillant étroitement avec les associations familiales japonaises qui revendiquent les mêmes changements dans le droit familial.

Source: http://afe-asie-nord.org/?p=242 

La rupture du couple, facteur notoire d’exclusion

Nous reproduisons ici un article du journal Le Monde qui traite de l’origine de l’exclusion.

(article original ici)

LE MONDE | 29.01.08 | 10h40 • Mis à jour le 29.01.08 | 10h40

Pourquoi un individu bascule-t-il dans la rue ? Des chercheurs mettent en avant la faiblesse des ressources, les conditions macrosociales (critères d’accès en HLM ou en foyer, coût des loyers dans le parc privé, etc.). D’autres citent les ruptures, vécues dans l’enfance et à l’âge adulte, à l’instar de « Personnes en détresse », étude réalisée en 2002 pour l’Observatoire sociologique du changement et la Fédération nationale des associations de réinsertion sociale (Fnars).

Ses auteurs, Serge Paugam et Mireille Clémençon, montrent que les exclus ont une probabilité plus forte d’avoir grandi dans une famille confrontée à de graves problèmes d’argent, d’avoir vu ses parents se disputer ou divorcer. Ils évoquent des difficultés plus personnelles dans l’enfance (problèmes de santé ou de scolarité, mauvais traitements, grand manque d’affection).

L’écart le plus important par rapport à la population concerne le placement dans une famille d’accueil ou en institution : près de 20% des personnes de leur échantillon ont été placées (1,9% en général). 30 % victimes ont subi des mauvais traitements et plus de 10 % des abus sexuels.

« Les personnes qui s’adressent aux services d’accueil, d’hébergement et d’insertion sont issues d’un milieu social assez modeste (…), mais ont surtout été proportionnellement plus souvent marquées par des difficultés et des ruptures dès l’enfance », concluent-ils.
Continuer la lecture de La rupture du couple, facteur notoire d’exclusion