Japan has bowed to global pressure to end the parental abductions of children from broken international marriages, a report said Saturday...

...Tokyo has decided to ratify the treaty, the Kyodo news agency said, but will not sign up immediately as it needs time to bring its domestic laws in line with those of other signatory nations. Times of India Dead Link. Try the Japan Times here.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find the original Kyodo report yet. The question now, assuming the report is correct, is how much time it will take to bring Japanese laws in line with the rest.

Kidnapping the only safe option two internationally-wanted kidnappers say

We've heard and read of the claims by certain folk in the government and elsewhere who have said that most Japanese child abductors fleeing back to Japan do so because of abusive spouses.

Up until now, we've had to take their word for it that such a danger exists. The Japan Times---which recently raised its single issue price to ¥180 for folks with no access to the Internet or perhaps no sense---has given us an example of hard-nosed investigative journalism at its best. Custody or Abduction: Returning to Japan with kids was the only safe option, two mothers say.

As we read through the article, we are given reasons by two ladies of why they chose to kidnap their children. Both had suffered domestic violence, both verbal and physical, and one had also received an alimony award that was so small that, "I realized that my son and I could starve to death if we stayed."

I suppose we'll just have to take the word of the two that this happened as they said. No mention of restraining orders, court actions, complaints filed, or much of anything else in the story. We have to admit that it is not unknown for foreign spouses to be ignorant of the legal system in foreign countries or that they are often not able to fully exploit it to protect themselves and their children. However, we won't learn if that is the case from reading the JT article for no relevant questions were asked. Actually, I don't think any questions were asked.

Hats off to you, Masami Ito for this report. We await your interviews of more than just two of many, many internationally-wanted felons and your follow-up with the hard-hitting questions that you left out this time just to keep us all in suspense. Otherwise, we may ask ourselves why anyone would pay ¥180 for the JT when we can read it for free online. Custody or abduction? WTF does that mean?

Child abductions to Japan needed to escape spouse abusing gaijin.

Japan continues to be under pressure from unsympathetic foreign countries about its policy of allowing a parent to abduct his/her child from a custodial parent overseas then flee to Japan with zero risk of extradition or any effective legal recourse from the custodial parent. There are estimated to be at least 175 such cases involving children from the US, Canada, Britain, and France. One might reasonably guess that there are many more from smaller, less powerful countries.

The Asahi published an article (English) about this problem about a week ago, although curiously attempting to show how Japan's refusal to sign the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction may have prevented a Japanese mother whose children was abducted to Britain by the British father from getting custody of her children back until after divorce mediation.

Oookkkkk. Since I assume the article was originally in Japanese (why bother to check since it'll disappear in a day or two at Asahi) they gotta write it to relate to folks here. Glad that she at least got the children back.

But then, to show that the "liberal" newspaper has balance, it reported the other side of the story---that signing this treaty could have very negative effects on kidnapped children and their international fugitive parent:

Another self-employed woman, 51, was cautious, however. She had long been a victim of domestic violence by her American husband.

The family moved from the United States to Chiba Prefecture in 1992, and she fled with two children to Tokyo in 1995.

She is now on an international wanted list on suspicion of abduction because the husband, saying the mother and children's legal abode is in the United States,* brought the matter before U.S. authorities.

The woman, who says "all I could do was flee," thinks the treaty would make such escape difficult. Asahi Shimbun

Yes, of course. There is nothing she could have done about (alleged) domestic abuse in the US. Or maybe as an immigrant she didn't know what could have been done.

Lawyer Kensuke Ohnuki, who handles about 200 divorces among international matches a year, says most child "abductions" by Japanese women are a result of spousal violence. (Same article)

Excellent reporting here. Just take the lawyer's word for it. I think we can understand who the real victims are---the Japanese spouses.

I wonder, had the man who kidnapped the children to Britain been abused by his Japanese wife?

*What an unreasonable move to claim that his children, who if born in the US were citizens, had a legal abode there! (Corrected 1026 am: This is confusing: Did the abuse occur in the US, Japan, or both? It is surprising to me that the US got involved since the abduction occurred while all were living in Japan.)

More of the same: Child abductions and Japan

Hillman dropped [his son] Sean off that evening at the home of his ex-wife, Mayumi Ogawa...

....Thirty-six weeks have passed since Hillman last saw his son and, despite court orders and felony charges filed this month against Ogawa, he's unsure if he ever will see him again...

...Hillman received a threatening e-mail from a Japanese attorney retained by Ogawa, claiming he'd face stalking charges if he attempted to contact his son...

The excuse by the robot at the Japanese Embassy:

"Japanese courts always take into consideration what the best interest of a child is with respect to each individual case..." Seattle P.I.

And, it seems, the best interest of the child is always to remain with the Japanese parent (who often become fugitives wanted by Interpol) who kidnapped him or her.

Note that Interpol's Japan page states that in Japan: "Parental abduction or a kidnapping by unknown persons in both cases are considered as kidnapping."

Oh, it's just all so confusing. Could it be that kidnapping your child from a foreign country is not considered kidnapping in Japan? Must not be as the father stated in the article that "No child has been legally or diplomatically returned to the US from Japan."

More from Interpol Japan page: No case has been known to Japanese police in which a child reported missing in Japan was taken away abroad, and so Japanese Police has not requested for the publication of a "Yellow Notice"* for a missing child until now.

However, it is necessary for Japanese Police to have a system in place which can be effectively used for the publication of, and reference to, 'Yellow Notices" in case incidents requiring such actions should happen in the future.

Does this mean Japan would change its tune were a child to be abducted by a parent in Japan and taken to a foreign country? Nah, that would be hypocritical.

*Yellow Notice: To help locate missing persons, often minors, or to help identify persons who are unable to identify themselves. (Interpol)