Pedaling for Justice: An example of dignity

[rachijapan]

Kevin Brown is a 45 yo American father,who like many Left-behind parents have suffered under the unjustice of the Japanese Legal System. However, his actions separated him from many others as his main objective is to give his little 6 year-old son the opportunity to have both parents in his life.

He is an example of dignity for all left-behind parents. Instead of taking the justice on his hands, he is looking for justice. Unfortunately, in Japan, justice is an Utopia. Instead of asking his government for full support, he starts pedaling for support at the different prefecture offices. This is couple with his work at the Japanese Diet. Please do not forget that he is only a “gaijin” (a foreigner).

He is attacking the Japanese system with logic and no with the big stick theory as he knows that this does not work in Japan. He and other are working like little ants, without trying to become famous or obtain remuneration for his services, moving this cause further through the use of legal instruments,  judiciary actions, and the proper work at the legislation offices in US and Japan.

Rachi applauds and salutes Kevin's actions because there is not better revolution than the one that is made with justice and love on your side.

http://www.rachijapan.com/pedaling-for-justice-an-example-of-dignity/

[SageDad]

Just curious, if Mr. Brown's actions "separated him from many others [ie LBPs] as his main objective is to give his little 6 year-old son the opportunity to have both parents in his life" what would you call the main objective of many others?

Personally, my patience is starting to wear thin with people obliquely chastising LBPs for not appreciating that, said one way or another, "the abductor is also a parent and the child has a right to both parents."

Well, um yes, that's true, but it's precisely the point that the abductor is the person that is preventing that.

Reminds me of how I'm viewed as an abduction risk for my son in Mexico, even though my son is currently living with a person with an established history of abducting him!  So, somehow, the innocent parent becomes the suspect and the abductor becomes the victim.  The LBP is somehow the one "trying to take away the child" and not appreciating a child's right to both parents.  It's breathtakingly bad logic yet, somehow, all too common.

[forthelost]

Kids have a right to both parents. However, if a parent is abusive to the child they've broken their half of the agreement. Abducting a child is an act of child abuse, and thus an abductor should not be surprised if their "right to see the child" is significantly curtailed.

[rachijapan]

Here it is the confusion. In Japan, there are two kind of cases.
1)- Abduction occurring from International countries (Where Foreign countries have exclusive legal jurisdiction)
2)- Abduction occurring inside Japan where due to the lack of "joint custody" laws in Japan, Children have not contact with both parents (Under exclusive Japanese jurisdiction).

Mr. Brown falls into the second category. He is fighting to abolish this archaic sole custody system in Japan. We have to remember that the situation in Japan is far more complex than in other western countries like Mexico or Brazil. There is not treaty in force between the countries (like the Hague convention), and there is not legal mechanisms to first obtain the return of any child or to even enforce visitation when a parent is living under Japanese jurisdiction. Therefore, the fight in Japan must be in two fronts: External and Internal pressure to ever achieve a change.

visit our site for more info:
http://www.rachijapan.com/disaster-in-japan/

[SageDad]

Here it is the confusion. In Japan, there are two kind of cases.
1)- Abduction occurring from International countries (Where Foreign countries have exclusive legal jurisdiction)
2)- Abduction occurring inside Japan where due to the lack of "joint custody" laws in Japan, Children have not contact with both parents (Under exclusive Japanese jurisdiction).

Mr. Brown falls into the second category. He is fighting to abolish this archaic sole custody system in Japan. We have to remember that the situation in Japan is far more complex than in other western countries like Mexico or Brazil. There is not treaty in force between the countries (like the Hague convention), and there is not legal mechanisms to first obtain the return of any child or to even enforce visitation when a parent is living under Japanese jurisdiction. Therefore, the fight in Japan must be in two fronts: External and Internal pressure to ever achieve a change.

visit our site for more info:
http://www.rachijapan.com/disaster-in-japan/

Actually, I don't think it's accurate to say the situation in Japan is more complex.  The situation in Japan is dire, but it's also very simple.  No children will be returned.  No joint custody.  Any judge, in the US or elsewhere, who does not take adequate measures to ameliorate reasonable abduction risks to Japan should be considered complicit in child abduction.  Japan has been very clear on this point for decades although US courts seem to be just now finding out about it with the media attention over the past couple years.  The US State Dept. has, of course, always known about this.  They have just never seen fit to publicly acknowledge it in any effective way to alert potential victims and authorities involved in such situations.

[rachijapan]

And this is the problem, that is why we put Mr. Brown as an example of "game changer". We are always asking what the US government can do for us, forgetting that the other governments are also helping their own citizen. US government has to respect the separation of powers and can not interfere with the justice. The problem is not so much what is going on with the US government, but what is going on in the other countries. Mr. Brown decided to act trying to change the way Japanese people see divorce and visitation by traveling on his bike for 1500 km around Japan. The situation in Mexico and other western countries is related to poverty, corruption and lack of training of court personnel. However, in Japan, there is a "government policy" favoring "international abductions". All abductions are terrible, we can't argue this. But at least in other countries there are resources to fight. We know of some left-behind parents that have been spent over 250,000 USD trying to secure some visitation in Japan. Of course ,we know the outcome. "Not child return" ever. We can't say the same with other countries....

[momoftwo]

We probably can't say the same for other countries...children have been returned from both Mexico and Brazil, but it's deceiving to believe that the examples of children returned represent the average situation.  For example, David Goldman's case took five years to resolve, and only did after his wife passed away and his story got widespread media attention that is far beyond what most LBP's ever get.  In Mexico, the children who were recently returned were the grandchildren of a U.S. Congressman.  It has been my observation over all these years of my brother fighting to have his son returned from Mexico, that the Hague Convention may be doing more harm than good; the State Dept., Congresspeople, the Mexican government, etc., can all write off any accusation that they are doing nothing to help by saying that there are processes in place and they need to be allowed to run their course.  It would be a shame to say that because these countries are signatories to the Hague Convention, they deserve or are in need of less pressure from all fronts to do what is right. 

Regarding visitation, I can personally attest to the fact that there is no effective means for enforcing visitation in Mexico (or from what I hear on this site, Brazil); the only difference may be that these countries feel they must save face by "ordering" visitation, that will in fact never truly be enforced, so that the LBP spends thousands of dollars trying to visit their child and then having their hopes shattered when they don't get to.  I have said this before and will continue to say, I do not believe that it behooves anybody affected by IPCA in any country to try and single out a particular harboring country....everyone would be better served by working together.

[rachijapan]

Agree that the US laws become a trouble when we are fighting against the broken system of other countries such as Mexico, Brazil, Japan, etc. However, it is not to blame the US to have laws to protect equally all citizen, or to blame the state department to follow the laws and statutes that were created in Congress to direct its function. I still believe that US must create more protective laws against the abuse of other countries. However, if we direct laws against other countries, we would become one of them. Therefore, US must show those countries how democracy works in the benefits of the population.

[SageDad]

Agree that the US laws become a trouble when we are fighting against the broken system of other countries such as Mexico, Brazil, Japan, etc. However, it is not to blame the US to have laws to protect equally all citizen, or to blame the state department to follow the laws and statutes that were created in Congress to direct its function. I still believe that US must create more protective laws against the abuse of other countries. However, if we direct laws against other countries, we would become one of them. Therefore, US must show those countries how democracy works in the benefits of the population.

Actually, we typically blame the State Dept. precisely for its incompetence and/or unwillingness to follow the letter and spirit of the laws passed by Congress.

Individual case workers at the US State Department may have little or no discretionary powers to do anything but offer sympathy and "moral support" but it was through the discretionary and voluntary decisions of the State Department that the caseworkers handling international child abduction be powerless functionaries whose only role is to make excuses to parents about why they can't do anything.  The excuses change based on the facts of the case but the result always remains the same -- they do nothing but offer excuses. 

State's inaction has very little to do with the laws passed by the US Congress and more to do with a desire to minimize the diplomatic and political impact of these cases by avoiding getting involved on any real level.

Unless you've been involved with any actual litigation under the Hague Convention, something that, for obvious reasons, doesn't occur in Japan, it may be hard to appreciate that when it comes to engaging in years of litigation in foreign and domestic courts there are any number of things that State can do to assist and facilitate the process... but they don't.