The International Travel Child Consent Form Is Now Translated Into Japanese

I CARE財団の子供の渡航同意書を日本語で提供

外国で片親により不正に奪取された子に関わる国際的な親による子の奪取を防止するために作成されたI CARE財団の子供の渡航同意書は現在、日本語でも提供されています。この渡航同意書は、1980年ハーグ国際的な子の奪取の民事上の側面に関する条約をめぐる法的な問題に対応し、日本から及び日本へ来る国際的親による子供の奪取の可能性の案件の監視を担当する日本及び世界の裁判所に、国際的な親による子の奪取に精通し、国際法、外交、そして司法の社会に広くサポートされ、ユニークで世界的に確立された裁判所が実施する奪取防止ツールを提供します。

2014年の夏に実施された大規模なI CARE財団の調査では、国際的な親による子の奪取に深く精通した世界中の何百人もの弁護士や裁判官を調査しました。調査結果によれば、94ヶ国の1980年国際的な子の奪取の民事上の側面に関する条約の署名メンバー国全ての国際的な親による子の誘拐の70%以上は、片親が子供のもう一方の親の同意または裁判所の命令を得ることなく、不正に子供を外国で拘束し、残された親の保護権と対象なる親に対する子の権利に違反する時に発生しています。この調査でも、不正な拘束に伴う1980年国際的な子の奪取の民事上の側面に関する条約の相当数のケースでは、奪取する親は多くの場合、子供が不正に拘束された国にある裁判所が、元の司法権を有する国に子を戻さないという行為に対する制裁を期待し、ハーグ条約の12条と13条で供されている奪取の弁護を利用していると結論付けました。

I CARE財団の国際担当常任理事のPeter Thomas Senese は以下のとおり述べていました。「I CARE財団の渡航同意書を活用して発生したこの渡航のケースの多くにより示されており、我々が把握している範囲では、この文書を利用した全ての子は帰宅できており、我々は国際的子の奪取防止の世界的な舞台においてハーグ条約に基づく渡航同意書が持つ重要な役割を引き続き目撃し、公式ハーグ渡航同意書をグローバルな拘束防止のツールに取り込むことを検討する事務総長の意図をサポートしています。我々はグローバルな国際的親によるこの奪取の割合は、ハーグ条約を基にした渡航同意書の利用により大きく減少すると極めて楽観的に見ています。我々の相当の研究では、全ての国際的な子供の誘拐の70%以上は、子が不正に外国で拘束されている時に発生しています – 我々の渡航同意書がうまく保護した親による子の誘拐のシナリオそのもの。」

「I CARE財団の子を保護する献身的な取り組みを示しており、我々のグローバルに認知された渡航同意書は現在、1980年ハーグ国際的な子の奪取の民事上の側面に関する条約の調印国で話される全ての言語を含め、30か国語で翻訳中であり、これまで翻訳が行われてきました。加えて、我々の渡航合意書周辺の数多くの法的な説明やその他の関連情報は引き続き、専門法律文書翻訳者の高レベルなチームにより全て30か国に翻訳されます。明らかに、これは小さな作業ではありませんが、欠くことのできない取り組みであることということを発表できることは喜ばしいことです。」

「日本に関して、そしてその点については、全ての国及びその子について、我々の渡航同意書の作成と利用はむしろ簡単です。子は魔法を知り、親による子の奪取の懸念の無い世界に住む権利を有しています。そして奪取を行う対象の親は、社会に誘拐から子を保護させる権利を有しています。我々はこの権利を確信しており、我々の作業と献身的な取り組みは継続していきます。」

The I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form Available In Japanese

The I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form created to prevent international parental child abduction associated with a child being wrongfully detained by one parent in a foreign country is now available in Japanese. The travel form addresses key legal issues revolving around the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention and provides Japan’s and courts worldwide charged with overseeing potential international parental child abduction cases to and from Japan with a unique, globally well-established court implemented abduction prevention tool that is widely supported by the international legal, diplomatic, and judicial communities familiar with international parental child abduction.

An extensive I CARE Foundation study conducted during the Summer of 2014 surveyed hundreds of attorneys and judges located around the world deeply familiar with international parental child abduction. The study’s findings showed that over 70% of all international parental kidnappings amongst the ninety-four 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention member signatory nations occur when one parent wrongfully detains a child abroad without the child’s other parent’s consent or a court order, violating the left-behind parent’s right of custody and the child’s right to the targeted parent. The survey also concluded the overwhelming majority of 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention cases associated with wrongful retention, the abducting parent often uses abduction defenses available to them under Article 12 and Article 13 of the Hague Convention in hope to have the court located in the country the child has been wrongfully detained in sanction their act of not returning the child to their country of original jurisdiction.

Extensive high remarks for the I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form as a groundbreaking, comprehensive, and significant global international parental child abduction prevention tool have been voiced by the leadership within legal communities familiar with international parental child abduction during  legal forums around the world including compelling commentary from senior officers of the Hague Permanent Bureau during but not limited to international legal symposiums on child abduction held during the LEPCA Conference in the Hague, the IAML Conference in New York, and the Sapporo Bar Association’s Hague Symposium in Sapporo. In addition a large and growing number of attorney Bar Associations in the United States and abroad have published positive and meaningful feedback concerning the I CARE Foundation’s travel consent form with clear intent to educate their legal constituents about the landmark child abduction prevention tool. Perhaps most meaningful is the reality that many judges around the world have praised the I CARE Foundation’s travel consent form, have utilized the document in their courtrooms, and continue to implement the form in courtrooms around the world during child custody and child travel legal proceedings.

The I CARE Foundation’s International Executive Director Peter Thomas Senese stated, “Demonstrating the I CARE Foundation’s commitment to protecting children, I am pleased to announce that our globally recognized International Travel Child Consent Form is presently being or has been translated into 30 languages, including every language spoken by signatory countries of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. In addition, numerous legal briefs and other pertinent information surrounding our travel form have and will continue to be translated into all 30 languages by a high-caliber team of professional legal translators. Obviously this is no small task; however, it is a vital undertaking.

“With respect to Japan, and for that matter all nation’s and their children, the creation and use of our travel consent form is rather simple: children have a right to know magic and to live in a world free of concern from parental child abduction. And targeted parents of abduction have a right to have society protect their children from kidnapping. We believe in these rights. Our work and dedication continues.”

I CARE Hague Convention Child Travel Consent Form Now Available In Japanese

The I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form Available In Japanese

The I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form created to prevent international parental child abduction associated with a child being wrongfully detained by one parent in a foreign country is now available in Japanese. The travel form addresses key legal issues revolving around the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention and provides Japan’s and courts worldwide charged with overseeing potential international parental child abduction cases to and from Japan with a unique, globally well-established court implemented abduction prevention tool that is widely supported by the international legal, diplomatic, and judicial communities familiar with international parental child abduction.

An extensive I CARE Foundation study conducted during the Summer of 2014 surveyed hundreds of attorneys and judges located around the world deeply familiar with international parental child abduction. The study’s findings showed that over 70% of all international parental kidnappings amongst the ninety-four 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention member signatory nations occur when one parent wrongfully detains a child abroad without the child’s other parent’s consent or a court order, violating the left-behind parent’s right of custody and the child’s right to the targeted parent. The survey also concluded the overwhelming majority of 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention cases associated with wrongful retention, the abducting parent often uses abduction defenses available to them under Article 12 and Article 13 of the Hague Convention in hope to have the court located in the country the child has been wrongfully detained in sanction their act of not returning the child to their country of original jurisdiction.

Extensive high remarks for the I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form as a groundbreaking, comprehensive, and significant global international parental child abduction prevention tool have been voiced by the leadership within legal communities familiar with international parental child abduction during  legal forums around the world including compelling commentary from senior officers of the Hague Permanent Bureau during but not limited to international legal symposiums on child abduction held during the LEPCA Conference in the Hague, the IAML Conference in New York, and the Sapporo Bar Association’s Hague Symposium in Sapporo. In addition a large and growing number of attorney Bar Associations in the United States and abroad have published positive and meaningful feedback concerning the I CARE Foundation’s travel consent form with clear intent to educate their legal constituents about the landmark child abduction prevention tool. Perhaps most meaningful is the reality that many judges around the world have praised the I CARE Foundation’s travel consent form, have utilized the document in their courtrooms, and continue to implement the form in courtrooms around the world during child custody and child travel legal proceedings.

The I CARE Foundation’s International Executive Director Peter Thomas Senese stated, “Demonstrating the I CARE Foundation’s commitment to protecting children, I am pleased to announce that our globally recognized International Travel Child Consent Form is presently being or has been translated into 30 languages, including every language spoken by signatory countries of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. In addition, numerous legal briefs and other pertinent information surrounding our travel form have and will continue to be translated into all 30 languages by a high-caliber team of professional legal translators. Obviously this is no small task; however, it is a vital undertaking.

“With respect to Japan, and for that matter all nation’s and their children, the creation and use of our travel consent form is rather simple: children have a right to know magic and to live in a world free of concern from parental child abduction. And targeted parents of abduction have a right to have society protect their children from kidnapping. We believe in these rights. Our work and dedication continues.”

 

I CARE財団の子供の渡航同意書を日本語で提供

  

外国で片親により不正に奪取された子に関わる国際的な親による子の奪取を防止するために作成されたI CARE財団の子供の渡航同意書は現在、日本語でも提供されています。この渡航同意書は、1980年ハーグ国際的な子の奪取の民事上の側面に関する条約をめぐる法的な問題に対応し、日本から及び日本へ来る国際的親による子供の奪取の可能性の案件の監視を担当する日本及び世界の裁判所に、国際的な親による子の奪取に精通し、国際法、外交、そして司法の社会に広くサポートされ、ユニークで世界的に確立された裁判所が実施する奪取防止ツールを提供します。

2014年の夏に実施された大規模なI CARE財団の調査では、国際的な親による子の奪取に深く精通した世界中の何百人もの弁護士や裁判官を調査しました。調査結果によれば、94ヶ国の1980年国際的な子の奪取の民事上の側面に関する条約の署名メンバー国全ての国際的な親による子の誘拐の70%以上は、片親が子供のもう一方の親の同意または裁判所の命令を得ることなく、不正に子供を外国で拘束し、残された親の保護権と対象なる親に対する子の権利に違反する時に発生しています。この調査でも、不正な拘束に伴う1980年国際的な子の奪取の民事上の側面に関する条約の相当数のケースでは、奪取する親は多くの場合、子供が不正に拘束された国にある裁判所が、元の司法権を有する国に子を戻さないという行為に対する制裁を期待し、ハーグ条約の12条と13条で供されている奪取の弁護を利用していると結論付けました。

I CARE財団の国際担当常任理事のPeter Thomas Senese は以下のとおり述べていました。「I CARE財団の渡航同意書を活用して発生したこの渡航のケースの多くにより示されており、我々が把握している範囲では、この文書を利用した全ての子は帰宅できており、我々は国際的子の奪取防止の世界的な舞台においてハーグ条約に基づく渡航同意書が持つ重要な役割を引き続き目撃し、公式ハーグ渡航同意書をグローバルな拘束防止のツールに取り込むことを検討する事務総長の意図をサポートしています。我々はグローバルな国際的親によるこの奪取の割合は、ハーグ条約を基にした渡航同意書の利用により大きく減少すると極めて楽観的に見ています。我々の相当の研究では、全ての国際的な子供の誘拐の70%以上は、子が不正に外国で拘束されている時に発生しています - 我々の渡航同意書がうまく保護した親による子の誘拐のシナリオそのもの。」

「I CARE財団の子を保護する献身的な取り組みを示しており、我々のグローバルに認知された渡航同意書は現在、1980年ハーグ国際的な子の奪取の民事上の側面に関する条約の調印国で話される全ての言語を含め、30か国語で翻訳中であり、これまで翻訳が行われてきました。加えて、我々の渡航合意書周辺の数多くの法的な説明やその他の関連情報は引き続き、専門法律文書翻訳者の高レベルなチームにより全て30か国に翻訳されます。明らかに、これは小さな作業ではありませんが、欠くことのできない取り組みであることということを発表できることは喜ばしいことです。」

「日本に関して、そしてその点については、全ての国及びその子について、我々の渡航同意書の作成と利用はむしろ簡単です。子は魔法を知り、親による子の奪取の懸念の無い世界に住む権利を有しています。そして奪取を行う対象の親は、社会に誘拐から子を保護させる権利を有しています。我々はこの権利を確信しており、我々の作業と献身的な取り組みは継続していきます。」

Japan and the Hague Child Abduction Convention: The I CARE Foundation's Child Travel Consent Form Builds A Bridge

The I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form: Building Bridges Of Cooperation Between Japan and the Hague Child Abduction Convention

The use of a model international travel child consent form such as the I CARE Foundation’s model Hague-centric travel agreement may bring about sustainable cooperation between Japan and Hague Convention Contracting States as all Convention Contracting States attempt to navigate Japan’s participation at the table of nations created to protect children from abduction

On April 1^st, 2014 Japan formally joined the table of nation’s participating in the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.  For many, Japan’s ratification of the Convention, which had been developed “to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention and to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to the State of their habitual residence” (Preamble of the Convention), was a landmark breakthrough, particularly since it was previously extraordinarily rare a parentally abducted child taken to Japan was ever returned to the child’s country of habitual residence.  Despite Japan’s ratification, there has been significant concern as to how Japan’s two courts dealing with Hague abduction cases (concentration of jurisdiction) would actually apply the Convention, in particular the Article 13(1)(b) exception. 

(Writers Note: At the time of this article there exist several pending cases being determined by Japan’s two Hague tribunal courts).

Inevitably, due to the particular importance of the role of judges under Article 13(1)(b), many stakeholders around the world, must carefully consider Japan’s capability and willingness to uphold the rules of law pertaining to a child’s welfare when considering whether to allow a child to travel to Japan with one of the child’s parents (presumably that parent is a Japanese national, typically the mother). Clearly there is concern over Japan’s past history to disregard a foreign issued court order stemming from the courts of the child’s original jurisdiction (habitual residence).

Preventing international child abduction is paramount to all issues when a court must decide whether to allow a child to travel abroad.  However there is another part to the story: the challenges a Japanese national living abroad faces when seeking court permission to travel with their child to Japan when the other parent opposes such travel due to concern that the other parent will not return with the child and the Japanese court will uphold the child’s abduction, considering the Article 13(1)(b) exception to be fulfilled and applicable.  Undeniably, foreign courts must act cautiously and prudently when considering whether or not to issue permission for a Japanese national to travel abroad with their dual-citizenship child. The arguments to restrict travel are indeed compelling.

But in looking at the long arch of the Hague Conference and its 38 conventions, including the 1980 Child Abduction Convention, what really exists are a series of ‘bridges’. Bridges that connect countries and its citizens. Bridges created to promote cooperation.  And perhaps most of all, bridges created to celebrate the ideals of global citizenship.

Allowing a child to know and embrace their full identity – meaning the culture, heritage, and family members living abroad - is paramount to good parenting.  So too is protecting against abduction. After all, the best response to abduction is not to let it occur at the first place.

One critical question for many stakeholders, including the judiciary, is ‘How do we cross the Hague Bridge when dealing with Japan?’

Well, to begin, in nearly all matters before foreign courts (outside of inbound Hague abduction cases and permanent mobility cases), the issue will revolve around permission to travel abroad for a family vacation.

One of the most effective tools that all courts located in countries that are signatories to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention can use to bridge the concerns between Japan and Hague Convention Contracting States is the I CARE Foundation’s International Child Consent Form that has been utilized in courtrooms around the world and has been called a “model to follow” by senior officers of the Hague Permanent Bureau. Critically, the I CARE Foundation’s Hague-centric International Travel Child Consent Form is steep in language that was created to prevent against misuse of Articles 12 and 13 of the convention while emphasizing the importance of a child’s quick return to their country of original jurisdiction should abduction occur.

Like all bridges, in order to allow passengers to cross, a strong foundation must be created on both shores. This is no different when addressing Japan’s participation to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.  In all fairness to Japan, it is clear that the country is taking seriously its participation to the child abduction convention as demonstrated by the very comprehensive efforts to prepare for the entry into force of the Convention for Japan and maybe in particular by concentrating the jurisdiction for Hague cases on two courts only.

It is the opinion of the I CARE Foundation that perhaps the most important step Japan can take as a nation to further integrate itself into the cultural climate of law created by the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention is for members of its legal community to begin implementing and upholding the I CARE Foundation’s Hague-centric International Travel Child Consent Form in Japanese courtrooms. By doing so, Japan creates internal case law and precedent for outbound child travel cases of Japanese children. Conversely, by establishing the I CARE Foundation’s travel form in its courtrooms, Japan’s courts sends a clear message that they will uphold the travel consent form issued in a foreign court.

Critical to the creation of this much-needed bridge is the immediate cooperation of Japan’s family law attorneys and judiciary to use the I CARE Foundation child travel consent form in Japan’s courtrooms.

Against this background, the I CARE Foundation was particularly pleased that on July 3^rd, 2014 at the Sapporo Bar Association’s Hague Symposium that was expected to draw over 120 of Japan’s top family law attorneys, as well as family law practitioners from Australia, France, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, China, and Singapore, the Foundation’s model travel consent form was presented as a good model example of a Hague-centric travel consent form.

Previously, Hague Permanent Bureau senior officers stated to members of the European legal community (at the LEPCA Conference held at the Peace Palace in The Hague) and the North American legal community (during the IAML Conference in New York), that the I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form was a model travel consent form that legal practitioners should consider using when dealing with international travel child matters.

According to an ongoing I CARE Foundation study that polls legal professionals deeply familiar with international parental child abduction, over 70% of all cases of international parental child abduction under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention are due to a child being wrongfully detained abroad. The I CARE Foundation’s Hague-centric travel document was established to prevent child abduction in the form of a child being wrongfully detained abroad.

As the international legal community attempts to navigate Japan’s participation to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, one thing is clear: the I CARE Foundation’s travel form can serve as a bridge between Japan and other Hague countries so long as Japan’s attorneys implement the form in its courtrooms and Japan’s judiciary upholds its use.

And is it conceivable that the I CARE Foundation travel form can become a bridge to protect children from abduction connected to travel to or from non-Hague countries? Yes.

We invite you to learn more about the I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form.

For attorneys seeking a copy of the I CARE Foundation’s legal analysis of our model international travel child consent form, please contact us at legal@theicarefoundation.org.

On behalf of the I CARE Foundation,

Peter Thomas Senese

Iraq Joins 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention

Iraq Joins 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention: Becomes 92^nd Contracting Member Nation To Multi-National Child Abduction Treaty

Starting with Japan becoming a Contracting Member of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention followed by Iraq’s acceding to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, 2014 has had a very good start for individuals dedicated to prevent international parental child abduction and trafficking. Under the auspices of the Hague Secretariat’s critical diplomatic work, 92 countries have now joined the table of nations dedicated toward working unilaterally at solving the global child abduction pandemic.

On April 9^th, 2014 Iraq acceded to the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which now counts 92 Contracting States as members to the multi-national treaty.  

Under Hague Conference on Private International Law Secretary General Dr. Christophe Bernasconi’s leadership, continued multi-national participation amongst countries that previously were hesitant to join the table of nations under the child abduction convention continues to grow. Previously, on January 24^th, 2014 Japan became the 91^st Contracting State to the Hague Child Abduction Convention. 

Iraq’s accession of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction occurred with little public notification, but has in fact sent a very loud message in the international community that the Hague Secretariat is proactive in the stance to protect children from abuse, including international parental child abduction.  Equally, Iraq and Japan’s accession to the Hague Child Abduction Convention demonstrates that diplomacy, more than anything else, is the key element needed when guiding non-member countries to join the child abduction treaty.

Similar to Japan’s decision to join the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Iraq’s decision sheds light that countries around the world are strongly recognizing the gravity and severe problems of international parental child abduction while also recognizing the need to stop international child kidnappings. Iraq’s participation in the Hague Child Abduction Convention, similar to Japan’s participation, enforces the global belief that the correct global mechanisicm to protect children from international parental child abduction is the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction under the auspices of the Hague Secretariat.

It is important to note that Iraq and Japan are geographically located in regions of the world where, due to religious and cultural reasons, were hesitant to previously join the child abduction convention. However, as the past two months have demonstrated, the governments who previously were hesitant to address child abduction by participating in The Hague Child Abduction are now doing so (As an example, the Republic of Korea {South Korea} became a Contracting Member on March 1^st, 2013). 

Today, as we take exceptional note of the remarkable progress and effort the Hague Secretariat has made bringing previously hesitant countries to become Contracting Members of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, we must also point out that it is critically necessary for all Contracting Members to work together to increase the viability of the office of the Hague Secretariat so that the multi-national conventions (38 including the Hague Child Abduction Convention) can be effectively used to assist those individuals they are intended to help.  In the view of the I CARE Foundation, this includes calling upon each Contracting Member to increase their financial support to the Hague Secretariat by increasing both the mandatory financial requirement and voluntarily increasing participation to the supplemental budget. Unquestionably, by increasing the financial capability of the Hague Conference, there will be much-needed opportunity to implement new and much needed education and outreach programs, which would in effect, cause all nations to become more compliant with the various intergovernmental conventions under the auspices of the Secretariat General.

As for countries that have still not become a Contracting Member of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, there is optimism that this will change as countries such as Indonesia, The Philippines, India and other nations continue to heavily consider accession of the Hague Child Abduction Convention.

The U.S. Government has not yet accepted Iraq’s accession. Accordingly, as of today’s date the Convention is not in force between the United States and Iraq, and child abductions from or to Iraq and from or to the United States are not yet covered by the Convention.

In additional international family law and Hague Conference news, on 9 April 2014, during the Council on General Affairs of the Hague Conference, Singapore became the 76th Member of the Hague Conference on Private International Law by depositing its instrument of acceptance of the Statute of the Organization.

On the same occasion, Brazil acceded to the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters which now counts 58 Contracting States

Finally, the European Union approved the Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (hereinafter the 2007 Hague Child Support Convention).

For more information about international parental child abduction, please visit The I CARE Foundation.

1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention Officially Takes Effect In Japan

Effective April 1st, 2014, Japan officially became a member of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. Japan’s ratification of the Convention not only makes them the 91st Contracting State, but it comes after long-standing diplomatic efforts and global public outcry over Japan’s previous failure to participate in the international child abduction treaty, as well as the proven history of not offering victimized children and targeted parents of abduction a vehicle to turn to in order to resolve international parental child abduction disputes.

From the standpoint of the I CARE Foundation, Japan becoming a member of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention is a definite sign that diplomatic efforts throughout the international community are working. It also strongly reaffirms that the Hague Child Abduction Convention is the right mechanism for both  governments and families around the world to utilize in an effort to settle international child abduction disputes. However, it is also critically important to note that Japan's Parliment has created significant loopholes for their citizens who abduct a child to remain in Japan and enable the two newly established Hague Courts to sanction a Japanese child's kidnapping in cases that the Japanese parent claims essentially any form of child or spousal abuse. The Japanese government's exemptions to the Hague Child Abduction Convention are particularly concerning as in the vast majority of international parental child abduction cases around the world, the taking parent (regardless of man or woman) claims abuse.

In present cases of mobility, we urge the courts around the world to move very cautiously when making considerations toward travel or mobility. Specificially, it is our extreme view that courts should heavily weigh whether a Japanese parent living abroad who is seeking travel with their child to Japan has previously made false allegations against the child's other parent, or, has demonstrated a penchant to be a non-cooperating parent when the court is deciding on mobility and travel cases.  In the event that false claims by a Japanese citizen living abroad has been made against their child's other parent, courts must realize that these claims against the child's other parent will be enough evidence a Japanese national may need to permanently remain in Japan regardless of Japan's ratification of the Hague Child Abduction Convention. It is also important to point out that in Japan's culture, typically only one parent is permitted to raise the child of a failed marriage or partnership. Finally, in existing cases occurring between Japanese nationals living abroad seeking mobility or travel, courts must be aware that many Japanese citizens living abroad with a child but who are seeking to relocate back to Japan more than likely fully understand the new loopholes established under Japan's annexation of the Hague Child Abduction Convention.  Court's must proceed with extreme caution as the Japanese government begins it process of upholding the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention while also addressing their own domestic family laws.

As part of Japan's participation in the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, retroactivity, for those foreign parents that have previously had a child internationally abducted to Japan are not eligible to file a Hague Application or utilize the treaty.  Saying that, we must be sure to always remember the children who have become victims of international abduction and taken to Japan - as well their left-behind families - because it is many of those families that successfully advocated for Japan’s ratification.

Japan Becomes A Member Of The 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention

(January 24^th, 2014)

Today in Tokyo, the Government of Japan approved ratification of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention; a few hours later, the Japanese Ambassador to the Netherlands, Mr. Masaru Tsuji, deposited the instrument of ratification, making Japan the 91^st Contracting State to this important treaty. This significant development reaffirms that diplomatic efforts among the international community, together with the invaluable assistance provided by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, are working; it also reaffirms that the Hague Child Abduction Convention is the proper mechanism for all governments and families around the world to utilize in order to settle international child abduction disputes.

Japan’s ratification of the Convention comes after long-standing multi-lateral diplomatic efforts combined with global public outcry over Japan’s previous failure to participate in the international child abduction treaty and to offer victimized children and targeted parents of abduction a vehicle to turn to in order to resolve international parental child abduction disputes.

The 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention will enter into force for Japan on April 1^st, 2014. Under Japan’s participation, foreign parents who have previously had a child internationally abducted to Japan are not eligible to file a Hague Application or utilize the treaty. Retroactivity remains a concern for hundreds of left-behind parents still seeking to reunite with their kidnapped children.

The 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention seeks to combat parental child abduction by providing a system of co-operation between Contracting States and a rapid procedure for the return of the child to the country of the child’s habitual residence. Judges overseeing litigation revolving around the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention are not to determine issues of custody as that issue typically falls under the jurisdiction of the courts located in the child’s country of habitual residency.

Japan’s ratification of the convention demonstrates that international diplomacy and education continues to work, while also creating a stronger atmosphere for other countries that are not participants to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, such as India, to strongly consider ratification.

In the past, Japan has been considered a ‘black hole’ for international parental child abductors as the overwhelming number of children abducted to Japan by a Japanese national living abroad have not been returned to the child’s country of original jurisdiction.

The vast majority of left-behind parents are fathers residing in Europe and North America. Tragically, the targeted parent often has little or no rights of access or custody to their child once the child lands in Japan due to the country’s antiquated and prejudicial family law policies that tend to grant a child’s mother sole custody of the child while simultaneously removing the child’s father’s access to the child. Japan’s legal system does not recognize the concept of joint-custody.

In May 2013, the Diet had approved Japan’s compliance to the treaty, sending out a clear indicator that the country was steadily moving toward participation. Until today, Japan was the only country in the Group of Eight (G8) that has not affirmed the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

The following month (June) Japan’s Parliament enacted a law stipulating domestic implementation procedures for the Hague child abduction treaty.

Japan’s Parliament established procedures requiring the country to create a Central Authority under the auspices of the Foreign Ministry. The Central Authority’s responsibilities include the tasks of locating children who have been abducted and encourage families involved in international parental child abduction claims to settle disputes through consultations.

If the consultations fail, family courts in Tokyo and Osaka specifically trained in 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention matters will decide on matters. The Central Authority will be staffed with legal experts in international private law as well child psychologist and domestic violence counselors. A third Hague Court location could later be added.

Under the terms of Japan’s Parliamentary action in June, 2013 the new law provides grounds forrefusal to return a child if abuse or domestic violence is feared, issues that are expected to draw keen interest in light of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention’s Article 13, a provision that is almost always utilized by parental child abductors regardless of the gender of the abductor.

Child abduction prevention advocates from around the world hope that Japan’s ratification of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention will further push non-Hague countries including India, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Philippines, and China (mainland) who are all believed to be actively assessing the Convention with a view to becoming a party to.

Today Japan has taken its place at the table of nations and finally a stand against the atrocity of international parental child abduction and severe abuse against targeted children and their families.  As Japan works to uphold the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention we must first and foremost not forget the children who have been abducted to Japan and their left-behind families, many whom successfully advocated for Japan’s ratification of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

We invite you to read the official comments shared by The Hague Permanent Bureau concerning diplomacy and Japan’s ratification. Please click here.

(End)

To visit the I CARE Foundation official website, please click here.