US Congress acts to prevent international child abductions

29 August , 2014

Source: nation.com 

WASHINGTON : Congress gave its final approval Friday to legislation that compels US authorities to assist American mothers and fathers whose children are victims of international parental abductions.

More than 1,000 international child abductions each year are reported to the State Department, with children often taken illegally from the United States by a foreign parent to countries like Brazil, England, India, Japan and Russia. Most of them are not returned.
By simple voice vote, the House of Representatives approved the Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act, named after son Sean who, through an intense US diplomatic intervention, was returned to his New Jersey home years after being taken to Brazil by his mother.
The bill passed the House last December, but the Senate tweaked it and approved its version last week. The House on Friday passed the final legislation and it now goes to President Barack Obama for his signature.
The international Hague Convention on child abductions provides a civil framework for speeding the return of children, but the rules are not consistently enforced.
The Goldman act, first drafted in 2009, “ensures that (American parents) will now receive significant help from the US government in their fights to recover their children,” said House Republican Chris Smith, who wrote the original legislation.
“With this bill, for the first time ever, parents with children held in non-Hague countries can work with the State Department. They won’t be on their own, far from the United States, desperately trying to get their children back.”
The law, once signed, would call for increasingly severe steps taken by US authorities if a foreign government does not cooperate in helping resolve abduction cases, beginning with diplomatic demarches and escalating to cancellations of official visits, suspension of economic aid, and formal requests for extradition of individuals engaged in abductions.
It would also urge the administration to forge bilateral agreements with Hague Convention and non-Hague Convention countries to help locate and return abducted children and protect access rights for the “left-behind” parent. “These abductions are a form of child abuse and a human rights violation,” Smith said.

 

For more information, visit our web site: www.abpworld.com

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

ABP World Group™ Risk Management

Contact us here: Mail 

Skype: abpworld

NOTE: We are always available 24/7

MALAYSIA Minister backs IGP’s decision to ignore Seremban child abduction

KUALA LUMPUR, April 14 — Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi defended today the police’s decision to ignore the alleged abduction of a boy by his Muslim convert father in Seremban, saying it was the Home Ministry’s “official stand” not to intervene.

“What has been mentioned by the IGP… that is the official stand by KDN,” he said at a press conference after speaking at the Putrajaya Forum 2014 here, referring to his ministry by its Malay initials.

Ahmad Zahid was asked to comment on criticisms against Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar who had last week said the police would not act on an abduction complaint against Izwan Abdullah because the latter was granted custody rights over his child by the Shariah Court.

Izwan, a Muslim convert previously known as N. Viran, had reportedly made off with his six-year-old son last Wednesday, two days after the Seremban High Court granted full custody of the boy and his nine-year-old sister to his estranged Hindu wife.

The court had awarded custody to S. Deepa, 30, as her marriage to Izwan, 31, in 2004 was a civil union and did not come under shariah law.

Despite a 2009 Cabinet prohibition of unilateral child conversions, Izwan made both his children embrace Islam last year, and later used their conversions as grounds to seek their custody in the Shariah Court.

It is understood that Izwan, a former lorry driver who currently works for an Islamic NGO called Yayasan Kasih Sayang, had converted both their children in April last year without Deepa’s consent.

Deepa, who filed for divorce and custody of the children in December last year, has been estranged from her husband since 2011.

The case is another in a series of inter-faith custody battles that highlight the complexities of Malaysia’s parallel civil and Shariah legal systems.

Legal experts have insisted that despite the conflicting decisions by the civil and shariah courts, the police’s refusal to act against Izwan’s alleged abduction of his son would only encourage more such cases in the future.

Source: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/minister-backs-igps-decision-to-ignore-seremban-child-abduction

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

Visit our website here: www.abpworld.com

ABP World Group Risk Management

Contact us here: Mail 

NOTE: We are always available 24/7

Europe: +44 020 3239 8020 – 24 / 7

AUSTRALIA: +61 (02) 6100 7730 – 24 / 7

USA: +1 (805) CHILD 11 (+18052445311)

+1 (310) 795 – 1089 – 24 / 7 emergency line

ABP World Group Company Update

ABP World Group will continue operating as a business to support our clients and left behind parents.

Please contact us for any security needs or support: Contact@abpworld.com

Parental Child Abduction – Every other day a child is abducted in any of the Nordic countries.

March 11 , 2014

ABP World Group Child Recovery Services

Every other day a child is abducted in any of the Nordic countries. We read about it in the newspapers,
on social media and all too often the criticism of our government agencies is hard.

 

Frequently the authorities takes a position of a “guarding species”, referring to the police,  prosecutor and international agreements such as  the Hague Convention. If the country, to which the child has been abducted, has signed international agreements there is at least a chance to get the child back, but at a considerable cost.

Significant sums are spent on attorneys’ fees , travels and time. It’s not uncommon that two or three years goes by before you get a result which unfortunately, after all this time, can go in either way.

If there is no signed agreements with the country to which the child has been abducted, the probability of bringing  the child back home with the authorities’ help is nonexistent.

In these cases there are private operators who specializes in assisting the parent, who by court has been awarded custody and from whom the child has been abducted, in actively helping him/her to find a solution. It means that they for example can step in and mediate, coerce or simply locate the child and actively assist the parent in a retraction. What you must always try to achieve is to have the rightful parent physically present in such an action.

In all cases when it needs to go to this level, preparation and groundwork is extremely important.

The risk of  an intervention to get violent is not an option, all actions must be carried out in a safe and secure manner.

We at ABP World Group is one of several companies in the industry offering such services and with more than 10 years of experience we are the first to lament that there is a market for this. What we can do is to offer an active solution to a problem that unfortunately has a potential to be lifelong.

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

Visit our website here: www.abpworld.com

ABP World Group Risk Management

Contact us here: Mail 

Skype: abpworld

NOTE: We are always available 24/7

1-800-847-2315 US Toll free Number
0-808-189-0066 UK Toll Free Number
800-11-618        Norway Toll Free Number

Worldwide International Number: +31-208112223

Worldwide 24/7 Emergency Number: +47 40466526

Expert: Parental abduction never in child’s best interest

An Ontario expert familiar with parental abduction cases speaks about how children are emotionally damaged by these incidents and relates two stories of children who were found in Toronto.

Terry Smith, Program Administration for Child Find Ontario, discussed the last side effects on children who have been abducted by a parent during a phone interview. She stressed first and foremost that parental abduction is a crime. “In almost all cases a child is not abducted for the good of the child.

Those cases are extremely rare. We have systems in place for when a child is in danger from another parent. Taking the law into your own hands is never the right way to go.” Smith said that for the most part parents who may not get along still do a wonderful job of co-parenting because they put the best interest of their children above all else.

Sometimes there are issues that need to be addressed which are by use of the systems that are in place. There may be reasons that the courts limit visitations for instance that a parent wants to change. By using the court system parents can work to give their children their best. “Parents may not always like the answers but the systems are managed by people who are without an emotional stake allowing them to work for what is in the best interest of the child.

The system works. In the rare cases that it doesn’t work parents need to challenge the system. Instead of abducting a child a good parent will come up with an idea to make the system work better. By and large co-parenting even without liking the former spouse is being done wonderfully every day.” It’s when a parent oversteps those systems, taking off with their child that everything falls apart.

Abducting ones own child is a crime. Still the public, media and even some law authorities view parental abduction as a ‘soft crime’ placing the bigger fears with stranger abductions. It is not often stressed the seriousness of parental abduction. The scars left on the child in these cases are not visible so they tend to be overlooked. “When found kids can do wonderfully when they are helped.

The children need to have support though in order to thrive and realize that they are not at fault.” While most parental abductions do not end violently some do.

Changing the public’s perspective of parental abduction is needed in order for more of these children to be found more quickly. The longer a child is on the run the more emotional damage there is and the longer it takes for the child to become a ‘real kid’ again when they are found. “When one person jumps out of line is when it goes wrong. When they feel that they are above the law their kids will suffer.

Parental abduction has serious side effects on the children. Trust, identity, living a lie, everything they knew of their life is gone, having to choose one parent over another-these add up on the overall toll to the child.” When a parent makes the decision to abduct their child they tend to not be considering their child’s best interest but rather their own. Being pulled away from the world a child knows has lasting effects. Kids who have been found and reunited with their other parent have said that they felt alone and isolated, betrayed by their parents and most damaging of all felt that they were in some way responsible for their parents actions.

The Victims of Violence website states that the child victim is often depressed, has a loss of community and stability, anger, loneliness, helplessness and a fear of abandonment. Some of the children have experienced Reactive Attachment Disorder, Separation Anxiety Disorder, Overanxious Disorder, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Conduct Disorder, Disruptive Behaviour Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, eating disorders, learning disorders, regression and elimination disorders, and Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome as a result of their time on the run. Smith said that these children have to deal with a huge internal tug of war. While there are few cases in Canada where children taken in parental abductions have been murdered there are a few.

One case that Smith related dealt with a man who was angry at his ex and took their daughter in Toronto. He had threatened to kill both himself and the child. The man threw the girl off an overpass and then jumped. The child survived, the father did not. Regardless when a parent is abducting their child they are “not running on all cylinders” Smith said. Smith said that when children are found they can thrive. She related two stories about children who were found that live in the Greater Toronto Area. “One little boy that has been taken when he was four spent four years on the run. He had never been to school or a doctor.

Today he is thriving. His father made sure that he had the help and support he needed to go on.” Smith continued, “Another girl had been found after thirteen years. When a child has been missing for such a long period of time they are really strangers to their parents and visa versa. While there were many adjustments that had to be made she is doing okay today.” There is one time that it is wise to take your child and ‘run.’ If you are in an abusive relationship going to a shelter is the safe thing to do. This is legal and in the best interest of both you and your child. This is not parental abduction.

This is a safety issue. Go through the proper legal systems. If you are in danger then get help. Go to a shelter or contact the police. If you don’t think the police will be of help then tell someone like your doctor, your child’s teacher or a school employee about your situation. Above all learn your legal rights.”

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

Testimonials from our clients

ABP World Group™ Risk Management

Contact us here: Mail 

Skype: abpworld

NOTE: We are always available 24/7

Parental Child Abduction – Lesson 1

ABP World Group Child Recovery Services 

Imagine…

You are in the kitchen cooking dinner while your children are playing in your front yard. When you go outside to call them in, they are gone.

Imagine…

You drop off your child at school before work. When you arrive to pick her up in the afternoon you are told that someone else has already taken her.

Imagine…

You wait for your former spouse to return your son following a schedule weekend visit. When your child isn’t returned, you go to the other parent’s home only to discover that the apartment has been vacated.

The physiological response in each of these situations is the same. Your heart begins to pound and your adrenaline starts to surge through your veins as the realization dawns that your children are gone. In an instant your brain considers possible explanations, but they each defy logic. Your brain already knows what your heart is desperately trying to deny. Your children have been kidnapped.

There are few horrors that can rival the experience of having one’s child kidnapped. Movies and television shows sensationalize child abduction. The nightly news further distorts correct understanding of child abduction by only reporting on the most dramatic of cases, for example, the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart. There exists, however, a less-glamorous form of child abduction which is perpetrated by the child’s own parent.

Parental Kidnappings

Each year there are more than 350,000 child abductions in America. The vast majority of these kidnappings are perpetrated by one of the child’s parents. The official term for this type of crime is “parental child abduction”, but it is also referred to as a “child kidnapping” or “child snatching”. Regardless of the terminology, the fact that the child is taken by the other parent does not diminish or negate the raw emotional trauma inflicted upon the other parent.

Parental kidnapping is the unlawful abduction of a child by one parent which deprives the other parent of their lawful custody of the child.  In divorce situations, the abductor may be the custodial or the non-custodial parent. This means that even if the abductor is the custodial parent or primary caregiver, if the abduction deprives the other parent of his or her court ordered visitation time then the custodial parent is guilty of parental child abduction.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention conducted an intensive and thorough research study on child abduction in America. The project is called the National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART). The section that focused specifically on children abducted by family members is called NISMART-2. This article extensively references the NISMART-2. The original study may be found at: http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org

Defining Parental Child Abduction

“For the purposes of NISMART-2, family abduction was defined as the taking or keeping of a child by a family member in violation of a custody order, a decree, or other legitimate custodial rights, where the taking or keeping involved some element of concealment, flight, or intent to deprive a lawful custodian indefinitely of custodial privileges.”

The NISMART-2 elaborates on the definition above by further defining the following terms:

• Taking: Child was taken by a family member in violation of a custody order or decree or other legitimate custodial right.

• Keeping: Child was not returned or given over by a family member in violation of a custody order or decree or other legitimate custodial right.

• Concealment: Family member attempted to conceal the taking or whereabouts of the child with the intent to prevent return, contact or visitation.

• Flight: Family member transported or had the intent to transport the child from the State for the purpose of making recovery more difficult.

• Intent to deprive indefinitely: Family member indicated intent to prevent contact with the child on an indefinite basis or to affect custodial privileges indefinitely.

Conceptualizing the Problem

Of the 203,900 parental child abduction cases studied, 57% were labeled as “caretaker missing”, meaning that the victimized parent did not know where the child was for at least 1 hour, became alarmed and searched for the missing child. However, the NISMART-2 reveals:

“It is possible for a child to have been unlawfully removed from custody by a family member, but for that child’s whereabouts to be fully known. Thus, a child can be abducted but not necessarily missing.”

In fact, the study found that 43% of the children kidnapped were not thought of as “missing” by the victimized parent because the child’s whereabouts were known to the victim parent.

“Although the family abductions described in this study typically had certain disturbing elements such as attempts to prevent contact or alter custodial arrangements permanently, they did not generally involve the most serious sorts of features associated with the types of family abductions likely to be reported in the news. Actual concealment of the child occurred in a minority of episodes. Use of force, threats to harm the child and flight from the State were uncommon. In contrast to the image created by the word ‘abduction,’ most of the children abducted by a family member were already in the lawful custody of the perpetrator when the episode started. In addition, nearly half of the family abducted children were returned in 1 week or less.”

Even if the child is not considered missing, the abduction is still considered child abuse because of the damage that it inflicts upon the child. The NISMART-1 found that, “family abduction can result in psychological harm to the child” and the NISMART-2 states that “family abductions constitute an important peril in the lives of children it is important to remember that the potential harm to family abducted children exists whether or not they are classified as missing”.

Characteristics of Parental Abductions

Location and Season. 73% of parental abductions took place in the child’s own home or yard, or in the home or yard of a relative or friend. Children were removed from schools or day care centers in only 7% of the cases. In 63% of the cases, the children were already with the abductor in lawful circumstances immediately prior to the abduction.

Police Contact. In 40% of all cases, the aggrieved parent did not contact the police to report the abduction. The study found a number of reasons for this, but the majority of responses indicated that the parent did not believe that the police would intervene in the matter because the child’s whereabouts were known, they were in the care of a legal guardian, and it did not appear that the child was being harmed. The highest percentage of abductions took place during the summer.

Ages. 45% of abductors were in their 30’s. 44% of abducted children were younger than age 6.

Indicators of serious episodes. “The use of threats, physical force, or weapons was relatively uncommon in family abductions.” 17% were moved out of State with the intent to make recovery more difficult. 44% were concealed, at least temporarily, from the victimized parent-+. 76% included attempts to prevent contact. 82% included intent to permanently affect the custodial privileges of the aggrieved parent.

Conclusion

Parental child abduction is the unlawful kidnapping of a child by one parent which deprives the other parent of his or her lawful custodial rights. This kind of child snatching not only victimizes the other parent, but it is also a serious form of child abuse.

When the abducting parent chooses to go underground or flees the state or country, recovery of the child becomes exceptionally difficult – and sometimes impossible. Because of this, if you suspect that your child is at risk of abduction you must act now. There are steps you can take to reduce the risk of abduction, as well as actions designed to make the recovery of your child far more likely.

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

One key to ABP World Group`s successful recovery and re-unification of your loved one is to use all necessary means available

Contact us here: Mail

NOTE: We are always available 24/7

U.S Phone Number: (646) 502-7443

UK Phone Number: 020 3239 0013 –

Or you can call our 24h Emergency phone number: +47 45504271

Scottish author recounts his kids’ abduction to Japan

June 16, 2012

Source: Japantimes

LONDON — A Scottish author has published a book about cross-border parental child abductions that weaves his personal tale of abandonment by a Japanese wife and the loss of his children into the tale.

Victim’s viewpoint: Douglas Galbraith, who in a new book on international parental child abduction recounts how his Japanese wife seized their two children and fled Scotland, works at his home in Edinburgh last month. KYODO

In “My son, My son,” Douglas Galbraith describes his efforts to cope after his two sons, Makoto and Satomi, were taken from Scotland to Japan in 2003 by his wife, Tomoko, following strains in their relationship. The boys were aged 4 and 6 at the time and he has not been able to see them since.

After divorce proceedings were later initiated in Japan, Galbraith, 46, was allowed to phone his sons once a fortnight while the case was ongoing. But he found the conversations strained, as the children gradually lost their English-language skills. All contact with them ceased 3½ years ago.

His book highlights the powerlessness of abandoned spouses fighting for the return of their abducted children, and the ways in which Japanese courts are allegedly biased against foreign fathers, according to Galbraith, a full-time author whose previous works include “A Winter in China” and “The Rising Sun.”

Galbraith also expresses skepticism over any positive outcome from Japan signing the Hague convention on international parental child abductions, which in effect requires countries to return children immediately to their country of habitual residence.

A number of Japanese women living overseas have fled from their husbands and taken their children home with them, prompting Western governments to urge Tokyo to become a party to the treaty.

Galbraith said that while the story is intended as a comprehensive study of the way children are treated by adults, he also hopes his own sons — now teenagers being raised in Osaka — will read it.

“It’s like a message in a bottle: an attempt to re-establish communication and leave something behind,” he said in a recent interview. “I hope this can repair some of the damage. I don’t know what they have been told about me.”

Galbraith recounts arriving home in Fife, Scotland, one night and finding his wife and children gone. He said the relationship had been “under strain” and that he feared his wife might seize the children and return to Japan as she had become “obsessed” with maintaining the children’s Japanese heritage.

He acknowledges there are a lot of positive aspects to child rearing in Japan, but says he wanted to raise his children in Britain because he feels it has a more cosmopolitan culture.

The author describes how his wife meticulously planned the abduction and, although Galbraith was holding onto the children’s passports fearing a possible flight attempt, she obtained new ones from the Japanese Consulate in Edinburgh.

In retrospect, Galbraith believes he should have started divorce proceedings in Scotland and sought full custody at a much earlier stage, as well as a ban to prevent his wife from leaving Britain with their children.

But once they returned to Japan, he realized the culture of the country’s legal system ensured custody would automatically be granted to his wife and decided to try and “keep things together” as best he could.

In the book, he argues that even though custody laws require courts to remain “neutral” on the issue of male parenting, the legal system is biased in favor of mothers.

“I would have been swimming against the tide,” Galbraith said. But “excluding fathers causes immense suffering not only for the abandoned parent, but for the children” too.

After discovering that there had been no previous cases of children being returned to their foreign parents in Japan, he mulled hiring a private security firm to bring the children back to Scotland at one point.

He also recounts setting up a fake email account and posed as a businesswoman interested in publishing some of his wife’s work to get her home address. The plan worked and he was able to start sending letters and presents to his sons, although he has never received a reply.

Galbraith describes how the return of abducted children have been blocked because Japanese parents — usually wives — can claim their offspring will suffer physical abuse or psychological harm if they are returned to their home country, despite the Hague convention.

And the longer abducted children remain in their new country of residence, the smaller the chance of the courts sending them home, Galbraith says.

The author believes conservative legislators in Japan are reluctant to ratify the Hague convention because they believe abducted children have a better upbringing in Japan.

If the accord is ratified, “the key moment is the first actual return of a parentally abducted child from Japan. Quite frankly, I’ll be surprised if it happens,” Galbraith said.

He argues Japanese family court judges must be instructed to refrain from determining the best place for a child to be raised based on their personal opinion, and should only concern themselves with whether a child has been abducted from its place of habitual residence.

“There’s a cultural attack on the child when it is abducted. It takes them away from their polyglot inheritance . . . and makes it smaller, and they are more controllable for the abducting parent,” he said.

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

One key to ABP World Group`s successful recovery and re-unification of your loved one is to use all necessary means available

Contact us here: Mail

NOTE: We are always available 24/7

U.S Phone Number: (646) 502-7443

UK Phone Number: 020 3239 0013 –

Or you can call our 24h Emergency phone number: +47 45504271

Review of Hague Abduction and Child Protection Conventions

Source: the Hague Conference on Private International Law

The Hague Conference on Private International Law is to convene Part II of the Sixth Special Commission Meeting to review the practical operation of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention and the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention from 25th to 31st January 2012. 

The Child Abduction Convention applies typically where one parent has moved a child abroad without the consent of the other parent and without the permission of a court. In such a case, the “left behind” parent may apply through the Hague system for the prompt return of the child.

The Hague Child Protection Convention provides for co-operation among States Parties on a wide range of cross-border child protection matters, e.g., parental disputes over contact with children, the protection of runaway children and cross-border care.

The Special Commission programme includes, among other things, presentations and discussions on:

• the enforcement of mediated agreements:
• grave risk of harm defence in return proceedings;
• international family relocation; and
• the future of the Malta Process, a dialogue between senior judges and high ranking government officials from Contracting States to the 1980 and 1996 Conventions and non-Contracting States with Sharia based law. The Process is aimed at improving State co-operation in order to assist with resolving difficult cross-border family law disputes in situations where the relevant international legal framework is not applicable.

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

One key to ABP World Group`s successful recovery and re-unification of your loved one is to use all necessary means available

Contact us here: Mail

Join the Facebook Group: International Parental Child Abduction

NOTE: We are always available 24/7

U.S Phone Number: (646) 502-7443

UK Phone Number: 020 3239 0013 –

Or you can call our 24h Emergency phone number: +47 45504271

Child abduction issue should be key concern in Japan-U.S. relations

Source: Japan Today

TOKYO —

The issue of international child abductions in Japan should be a key concern in bilateral relations between Japan and the United States.

For years, the international community has been pressuring Japan to abide by international human rights standards in preventing cross-border parental kidnapping.

Japan has been censured for not being a signatory to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which protects children from wrongful removal or retention from their habitual place of residence.

Though former Prime Minister Naota Kan announced on May 20 last year that Japan intends to sign The Hague Convention, Japan is the only G8 member that has yet to become a signatory. LBPs (Left Behind Parents) are cautious to find the signing as reason to cheer because changes are also needed in Japan’s family courts for them to be reunited with their children. The continued condoning of both domestic and international child abduction cases can be traced to Japan’s family court.

Japan’s family court often awards sole custody to the parent with whom the child is residing. If the other parent wishes to see their child, permission by the parent to whom custodial rights were awarded becomes necessary.

This means that the parent who takes away the child from the other parent first will be in a superior bargaining position, since the family court overwhelmingly recognizes the status quo of whom the child is residing with.

Many LBPs have criticized the Japanese judicial system for condoning abduction by granting sole custody rights to the parent who snatches the child away first. In situations where cross-border kidnappings take place, the foreign parent is effectively powerless, as the Japanese family court will rule in favor of the parent with whom the child is residing. This has led some bereaved foreign LBPs to refer to Japan as a “black hole for child abduction.”

First, the Japanese government’s stance to become a signatory of The Hague Convention is an indication of changes in favor of adopting international human rights standards.

The move comes at a time when the numbers of international marriages and divorces are increasing in Japan. According to the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare, approximately 19,000 international marriages ended in divorce last year in Japan, comprising 7.5% of the total number of divorces in Japan. In 2010, the ratio to divorces to all marriages in Japan was approximately 36%. Children of divorce are at significant risk of losing access to one parent in the current family law system.

Things are finally starting to change at both the international and domestic levels. There are two model cases, one in Wisconsin and one in Matsudo, Chiba.

Japan has stuck to awarding sole custody to one parent following a divorce since the Meiji era. Though some have mentioned this as evidence of sole custody being a part of Japan’s culture, in reality, this system has also created a legal system that condones child abductions.

In addition, on Dec 23, 2011, a girl was returned to her father in Wisconsin after being abducted by her Japanese mother nearly 4 years earlier, the first return of an abducted child from Japan by means of the courts.

She was reunited with her father when her mother, who had been arrested in April 2011 in Hawaii on child abduction charges, agreed to a plea bargain to be released from jail in exchange for returning their daughter to the United States.

The case, which received wide coverage in international and Japanese media, marked the first time for Japanese media such as NHK and Asahi to use the term “tsuresari” (abduction) rather than “tsurekaeru” (to bring home).

Of course, a plea bargain is still not the equivalent of a change in stance in Japan’s family court, but changes are also gradually being implemented in the domestic sphere as well.

Many people following the child abduction issue are closely monitoring the development of a high-profile domestic abduction case in Matsudo, Chiba Prefecture, to see if a judicial precedent making child abductions an unlawful act will be made.

On April 26, 2011, former Justice Minister Satsuki Eda mentioned three criteria that need to be considered in determining the custody of children after divorce, as stated in article 766, in his remarks to the Committee on Judicial Affairs.

The three criteria are: the abduction of children should be eligible for consideration as child abuse; the issuance of custody rights should favor parents who are willing to allow the other parent visitation of their children (also known as the “friendly parent rule”); and parents who commit unlawful abductions of their child should be at a disadvantage in the issuance of custody rights.

At the domestic level, article 766 of Japan’s civil code, which stipulates legal guidelines for the custody of children after divorce, was revised on June 3, 2011, to include a provision which states that visitation and economic support must be deliberated between the two spouses before divorce papers are submitted.

As stated in the “friendly parent rule,” one of the three criteria underlined by Eda, not allowing visitation, ought to work unfavorably toward obtaining custody rights. In cases where the child has already been abducted, the LBP may offer the abducting parent visitation in fighting to recover their child in court.

In effect, the revision of article 766 is significant, as the abduction of a child by a parent will be in breach of the new provision. This measure, if properly enforced by Japan’s family court, will help prevent the abduction of children by a parent.

However, when asked to recognize the remarks made by Eda, Tatsushige Wakabayashi, the judge presiding over the case, reportedly remarked, “What the justice minister says at the Diet is irrelevant.”

In response, various LBP groups have called for Wakabayashi to step down. Wakabayashi has yet to make a final verdict, leaving both domestic LBP groups and the international community tense anticipating his decision.

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

One key to ABP World Group`s successful recovery and re-unification of your loved one is to use all necessary means available

Contact us here: Mail

Join the Facebook Group: International Parental Child Abduction

NOTE: We are always available 24/7

U.S Phone Number: (646) 502-7443

UK Phone Number: 020 3239 0013 –

Or you can call our 24h Emergency phone number: +47 45504271