The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is meant to protect children in times of abduction and abuse. The fact that Japan is the only full member of the G8 not signatory to the Hague Convention is tearing one Canadian family apart. Unfortunately, this type of story is becoming more common as counties like Japan turn a blind eye to children’s rights.
In November 2004, two Canadian children, Takara and Manami Maniwa-Wood, were abducted to Japan from their home in Vancouver. They have had no contact with their family in Canada for four years. The children’s non-custodial mother, Ayako Wood, was able to get the children out of Canada by deceiving their father and the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Before she abducted the children, Ayako had repeatedly demonstrated her disregard for the rule of law and the best interests of her children. Consequently, in February 2004, the B.C. Supreme Court Justice Sherman W. Hood ordered that Murray Wood have sole custody and guardianship of the children. He stated in his reasons for judgment that, “[Murray Wood] is a loving and caring father … and he has the means and skills to meet their needs in every way …. On the other hand, the defendant [Ayako Wood]’s … injurious misconduct in relation to the children must come to an end.”
In the fall of 2004, Ayako asked to take the children to Japan to visit their ‘gravely’ ill maternal grandfather. Similar trips had been made in the past. The importance of the children maintaining a connection to their Japanese heritage was always recognized and supported by Murray. Thus, both parents consented to a court order for the children to travel to Japan in November 2004. The order specified departure and return dates, stated that the Supreme Court of British Columbia had sole jurisdiction over the children and prohibited their mother from making application for custody in any other jurisdiction.
These precautions, taken prior to the children's departure, were not enough. After the children were gone, Murray found out that the child maintenance cheques Ayako had given him at the airport had been reported lost. He also discovered that Ayako had shipped 18 boxes (350 kg) of household goods, including children’s toys and clothing, to Japan and abandoned her apartment. She left no forwarding address with the post office, her bank, her employer, or her creditors. She also gave up her job as a flight attendant at Air Canada, calling in sick the day she left and then severing communications with her employer altogether. Unable to contact her after she had used her last three days of sick leave, the company terminated her employment on December 12, 2004.
A warrant for Ayako’s arrest was issued in January, 2005. She is charged with two counts of child abduction. The RCMP has informed INTERPOL of the warrant and the Canadian government has made repeated formal requests of the Japanese government to return the children to Canada. The Japanese government’s response has been that, since they are not signatory to the Hague Convention, they are not obligated to comply with the Canadian requests. The Japanese government also maintains that, since there is no extradition treat between Canada and Japan, it is not possible for the Japanese government to assist Canadian authorities in bringing Ayako to justice.
The only available remedy was to make a habeas corpus application at the Japanese District Court in Saitama. The court was provided full translations of the Canadian judgments and extensive explanations of Canadian family law. Several appearances of counsel and of Murray and his father provided compelling evidence that Ayako had defied lawful court orders and intentionally deceived both Canadian and Japanese courts. However, despite all of this, the Saitama District Court determined that the children were not ‘detained’ since they ‘wanted’ to stay in Japan. This conclusion was based on the words of Takara, a ten-year-old victim of parental abduction who had been denied all access to his left-behind Canadian family for over 6 months.
Murray appealed the District Court’s outrageous decision but, on September 9, 2005, the Supreme Court of Japan refused to hear his appeal. After 10 months of drawn-out legal proceedings, the highest court in Japan decided to ignore the crimes that Ayako was accused of in Canada and the ridiculous lies she told to try to justify her actions. The children thus remain in Japan where they have no opportunity to communicate with their Canadian family and friends.
Since the children left Vancouver on November 27, 2004, Murray has been denied the right to talk to or see Takara and Manami. His only direct contact with them was a brief meeting organized by the Saitama District Court which was orchestrated with such insensitivity and ineptitude that it likely did the children more harm than good. Murray was not allowed to have any time alone with his children. The court expressed concern that he might try to influence them.
This case highlights a major flaw in the Canada/Japan relationship and reveals a marked dichotomy between Japanese domestic law and international posturing. Japan is harboring a fugitive and denying the fundamental rights of two Canadian children. Despite the court having recognized that Ayako abducted Manami and Takara to Japan, the Japanese government is allowing her to live in Japan with impunity. In fact, the Family Court, through a bizarre interpretation/manipulation of the evidence presented to it, awarded custody of the children to their mother. Murray appealed this decision as well, but the Appellate Court upheld the lower court’s decision. After years of trying to work within the Japanese legal system to secure the return of his children, Murray and
his children are now worse off than they were when the children were first abducted.
Unfortunately, this case is not unique and many children are caught in similar situations. As intermarriage between Japanese and foreign nationals increases, the potential for international custody disputes rises in direct correlation. Japan cannot continue to ignore this problem. It is signatory to the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child which states that children have the right to maintain a meaningful relationship with both parents after a divorce. However, in Japan, shared custody is unheard-of and there is no mechanism for providing children adequate access to parents they do not live with.
The family law system in Japan needs to be overhauled and brought into line with contemporary realities and international standards. The need for change is clearly recognized by informed parties within and outside of Japan. The Japanese Federation of Bar Associations, for example, states in its 2003 Alternative Report to the Second Report of the Japanese Government on the Convention on the Rights of the Child that, “In order to retrieve a child brought to Japan, or a child sent overseas as a result of arguments between the child’s father and mother, the Japanese government should accede to the 1980 Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (p. 94).” Patricia Hoff, Legal Director for the Parental Abduction Training and Dissemination Project,
American Bar Association on Children and the Law, stated in 1997 that, "Because of the harmful effects on children, parental kidnapping has been characterized as a form of child abuse." Ongoing research continues to support her conclusion.
The knowledge and resources needed to make the required changes are available. What is missing is the political will. The Japanese government must recognize the need to protect children from the abuse of parental abduction. History has shown that such change will require both internal and external pressure on the government. At a time when Japan is seeking a more influential role on the world stage, it must be made clear that their neglect of this critical issue is not acceptable.
