Left Behind Parents Japan protesters
Father’s Day is a holiday that celebrates the bond between child and parent. For most of us, that bond is considered to be sacrosanct, and even if a mother and father separate, no one expects one of them to give up their rights and responsibilities to their child. That’s not the case in every country, though. Here in Japan, as a matter of fact, a divorce results in one parent retaining all rights to the children. The noncustodial parent is left with little or no recourse under the law to see their kids. It is a sad situation, not only because many Japanese parents are unwillingly separated from their kids, but also because it is making Japan a haven for international abductions.
This Father’s Day, I joined a protest held by the Japan branch of the group Left Behind Parents. The informal theme of the rally was “Fatherless Day,” as many of the participants were fathers who have been prevented from seeing their children by the outdated and unfair custody laws. We marched for about an hour through the busy streets of Shibuya, one of the most popular shopping districts in Tokyo, and despite our relatively small group, we garnered a lot of attention from both media and passersby. As we marched, we shared the Left Behind Parents’ main complaints.
Domestically, they would like to see laws for divorce and child custody lchanged. Legally, joint custody does not exist here. In the event of a divorce, custody goes to one parent who then has complete control over the child. They do not have to allow for visitation. They do not have to consult with the other parent when making decisions, large or small. They do not even have to inform the other parent if they take the child and move away. There is nothing a noncustodial parent can do to insure access to their child.
The practice of giving all rights to one parent is particularly problematic because the system is strongly biased against fathers and non-Japanese. Custody almost always goes to the mother or to the Japanese parent in the case of international marriages, regardless of his or her financial situation or ability to care for a child.
In one case, the court granted custody of a little girl to the Japanese mother in spite of the fact that she had already abandoned one child with severe disabilities and was not working. The father, meanwhile, was caring for the abandoned child, owned his own business and was willing to relocate to the U.S. to obtain better medical care. The court also allowed the mother to move her daughter to a remote island, making it even harder for the father to see his daughter.
On an international level, the Left Behind Parents would like to see Japan become a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Because Japan is not currently a signatory, Japanese parents living abroad can simply return to Japan with their children if a custody ruling goes against them. The Japanese government is under no obligation to, and will not, return the child to their previous country of residence. Once in Japan, the jurisdiction of the case will fall to the Japanese courts regardless of whether there is an arrest warrant for the Japanese parent issued by another country, or even by Interpol. And in thousands of such contested cases, the custody has never been awarded to the non-Japanese parent.
It’s always hard to define success when it comes to protest marches. Certainly, Japan’s legal system and international commitments are not going to suddenly change just because of one small group of people holding signs and chanting slogans, but at the same time, if we made a few more people aware of the situation, if we have garnered a few more supporters, then we’ve made progress. Eventually it will be enough to force real change. So in honor of Father’s Day, think about the cruel situation these parents find themselves in and take a moment to share your support.
Other articles by Jessica about Japan:
Who’s Your Daddy: Gender Identity and Paternity in Japan
Protecting a National Sport or Out-and-Out Racism
Jessica is a writer and editor living in the exciting, interesting and sometimes confusing city of Tokyo. She loves traveling and learning new languages and is rarely to be found without a book or two within arm’s reach. She writes a regular column on NPO/NGOs and volunteer work in Japan for Metropolis Magazine and specializes in English as a Foreign Language materials.
In that one case you pointed out, there was no reason the mother should not have had custody of her daughter. She left the father before the child was born and was the only parent the child knew, and nothing was claimed she was a bad parent.
Why you think his having more money or working should give him custody, but her not working should be held against her I don’t understand. She was pregnant or had a newborn when she was not working. Because she was not working she could and did care for the child. So because she has less money and isn’t working she should not have custody? Your reasoning does not make sense.
In Japan, when divorced, one parent gets custody and the other parent stays away, that’s not abandonment in their culture, it’s how divorce and custody are handled. The father got the son, and she got the child she was pregnant with, the daughter. Why villainize her for something that is their cultural standard? In fact, Prime Minister Koizumi had a similar situation during his divorce. He got his sons, and his wife who was pregnant got that child. Neither parent had contact with the other children. That’s how it works in Japan and it’s wrong to try and make it seem as though they are doing something against foreigners when even their Prime Minister adheres to the same standard.
Next you say the court was wrong for allowing her to move to another part of Japan, but in the next breath you say the court should allow the father to move with both children to a different country! Is it more difficult for him to visit within one country than for her to get a visa and travel around the globe to visit? That’s an incredible bias you show there!
Japan is not a third world country with no good medical facilities. Is it really impossible for the child to get good care in Japan? If so, why has he not been able to demonstrate that to a court?
Insightful?:
0 
0
It may be a cultural standard for one parent to have all the rights, but it isn’t fair to the child or the parent left behind. Many of the people I spoke to had children taken away from them when they were several years old. The parent with no rights desperately wanted to see their children, but were being denied the chance by their ex. Who knows what the custodial parent was telling the child about the absence of their non-custodial parent? Frankly, it may be the cultural norm, but it’s a form of emotional abuse.
As for the specific case I mentioned, I didn’t go into detail, but the city where the father and son live can only provide them with twice a week assistance in the form of a care center they have to travel to. And then only if a bed is open. The child needs round the clock care because he cannot swallow on his own and has to have his airways cleared. Right now, his father is providing all of it, since the mother has given up all claim to the child and doesn’t wish to see him. In the States, they would qualify to have daily, in-house assistance from a registered nurse, which would be a huge help.
Now I disagree that just because the mother left when she was pregnant she has more rights to the child. I’m assuming you are a woman, so how would you feel if someone took your child right after birth and then told you that you had no right to it because you had never even seen it? A parent’s rights don’t stem from how much time they have spent with their kid, they are inherent. Conversely, I don’t argue that the mother has no rights to her daughter, but I see no reason why they cannot make sure that their little girl has the love and support of both parents when both of them so desperately want to be a part of her life.
Custody decisions should be made with the best interests of the children in mind, and I fail to see how giving one parent all the rights and one parent none serves the best interest of the children.
Insightful?:
0 
0
The father is not prohibited from moving to another city with more available medical care, only from leaving the country. He does not have to move thousands of miles away, to a place where the mother would have to apply for the right to even enter the country before she was allowed to visit her child.
No, a parent’s rights don’t stem from how much time they’ve spent with a child, but the quality and quantity of time is an important component in any judicial custodial decision. The mother did not have more rights to the child because she gave birth, but because she was the primary caregiver when custody was decided. After the birth of the child both parents had shared rights until the courts said otherwise.
The courts are already allowing the father visitation to show love and support to his daughter. Wouldn’t his being allowed to leave the country with both children deny the daughter the love and support of the mother? How would that be an improvement over her living in another city in the same country? His living in another country would essentially give him a default sole custody, certainly physical custody and decision-making rights, of the kind you seem to abhor.
I disagree with your notion that sole custody is emotion abuse and your suggestion that the parents with sole custody are somehow abusing the child with what they tell them about the new custodial situation. There is a lot of rancor and negativity created in many shared custody situations in western nations. Adult children will testify to that, and you even hear of parents killing the children or the other parents. So I’m not buying the theory that shared custody is superior to sole custody, and that the latter is emotional abuse. The Japanese system is intended to minimize the harm to the family unit, the same way the Western system tries to, by removing a point of major conflict and stress. In the West they try to agree to share, in the East they agree to lead separate lives allowing a new family unit to be built. There are flaws in both systems, and cases of emotional abuse can stem from both, but the idea that either is superior to the other is certainly not proven.
The definition of the best interests of child from a Western perspective is fundamentally different from the Japanese perspective, and you don’t agree with the Japanese definition. But I don’t see any proof that the children from the Japanese system are more damaged as children or adults than the children from the Western system. The complaints written so far, come from the Western parents and a few Japanese parents, and not from the (adult) children who have gone through the system. So, is this really about the best interests of the children, or the interests of the non-custodial parents?
Insightful?:
0 
0
[...] Read more in this Inter Press Service article: Left-Behind Parents Want End to Single Child Custody System and this Conducive Chronicle article: Left Behind Parents. [...]
Insightful?:
0 
0
I this particular case one important piece of information has been left out. The mother signed a legal agreement, before the birth of the daughter, to give custody of the child to the father after the child’s birth. As some point the mother changed her mind and decided she wanted sole custody of the child. If you do your research all of the experts say children are better off with both parents in there life. There is an important treaty that Japan has largely ignored since they ratified and signed it. That is the United Nation Convention on the Rights of a Child (UNCRC). It says that children are entitled to both parents and if one parent unilaterally cuts off contact it is the responsibility of the state (Japan) to re-establish contact. The UNCRC also requires that the child in question have access to and learn about both cultures/languages. In this particular case neither parent is Japanese and Japanese law should not apply. The judge in this case was required to follow Brazilian or US law, which he did and didn’t do. On paper the father has joint custody of the daughter. This is probably a first in Japan. I know of know other case where either parent was given joint custody. This is a complicated case but (at this time) in my opinion it is clear the mother is not doing what is in the best interests of her children.
Insightful?:
1 
0
[...] Who We Are READ ABOUT IT. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Diverse progressives writing compassionate, critical and solutions-oriented news and culture. Building connections toward a better world. Recent CommentsBenny Henderson on What is Going on in Arizona: States Try to Reform Immigration Law Because the Feds Haven’tCharlie Wilson on Green Gadget Spotlight: Eco-friendly street signs from e-wasteEsme Fisher on The Divided Not United: Forgetting Racial HistoryEryn-Ashlei Bailey on Former Black Panther Kathleen Cleaver’s Fights For Land and JusticeKevin on Left Behind Parents [...]
Insightful?:
0 
0