Editorial
Japan must keep interests of children at center of deliberations on int'l custody treaty
There are ongoing cases of Japanese citizens returning to Japan with their children after divorcing their non-Japanese spouses, and standing accused of child abduction under the laws of their former spouse's country. Such custody disputes have developed into a diplomatic issue, with the U.S. and European nations pressuring Japan to sign the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
The treaty stipulates that when children are taken out of their country of residence and their parent files for the children's return, the government of the country to which the children were taken is obligated to cooperate in the children's return or in coordinating negotiations between the various parties. Germany and Japan are the only G8 countries that have yet to sign the treaty.
The reason that the U.S. and European nations are pushing Japan to join the convention is because there have been many cases in which Japanese mothers bring their children back to Japan without the consent of the children's fathers. It is said that there are more than 180 such cases involving Japanese mothers and fathers in the U.S., the U.K., France and Canada. There have also been reports of children being taken from Japan to other countries, but fewer such cases have come to light.
Differences in custody systems are what have given rise to this issue. In many of the Hague Convention signatory countries, parents are awarded joint custody of their children after divorce, with children often spending time with both parents. In Japan, however, sole custody is the general rule, and it is usually awarded to mothers.
Mothers who bring their children back to Japan think that it is only natural that they raise them. Moreover, many such mothers are said to complain of having been victims of domestic violence. From their perspective, it does not make sense to place their children, who are now living in a stable environment, with their former husbands. Additionally, such women worry that they may not be given custody due to discrimination in the courts in their former spouse's home country.
Indeed, bringing one's children back with them to Japan despite a joint custody ruling is wrong. But we must be cautious that any action we take does not contradict the duty of the government to protect the interests of its citizens.
The Foreign Ministry says that it cooperates with requests for visitation from foreign diplomatic missions, and has spoken to various parties about their circumstances. But shouldn't they be conducting wide-ranging hearings in cases it knows of that involve non-Japanese former spouses, in order to gain a better understanding of the current situation? Non-intervention in civil affairs may be the rule, but something must be done as this is turning into a diplomatic issue.
The Hague Convention states that children do not have to be returned to a former spouses' country of residence if such action runs counter to the children's interests. Japan must conduct a review of how such rules are implemented in signatory countries. It is said that the transfers of custody between signatory countries are not without their problems. It is important that Japan analyze records of cases that have been amassed by the Hague treaty office.
In late February, Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama instructed Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada and Justice Minister Keiko Chiba to come up with a swift resolution to the matter. However, many loose ends still need to be tied up before a conclusion can be reached. First and foremost, it is the children's interests that need to be protected.
International marriages are no longer rare. It goes without saying that individuals must recognize the weight of their decision to live and raise children with partners from other countries and cultures.
(Mainichi Japan) March 15, 2010