The darkness of the “real child kidnapping business” Human rights lawyers’ crazy tricks | Nozomi Makino

Share THIS:



“Ten years ago today (May 6th), my daughter was kidnapped–my daughter, who was two years old, is now a junior high school student.” Suddenly, his father (Mr. A) was robbed of his beloved child. What happened to him? Behind that, there was a illegitimate move by human rights lawyers who took away and gave instructions on how to “kidnap a real child” such as false DV. A father who has been robbed of his beloved daughter is accused of his soul! We approach the darkness of the “real child kidnapping business” that is carried out on a daily basis in Japan!

Group lynching by human rights group “39 people”

Getty logo

When I get tired of work and go home, my child rushes to me and hugs me. A small hand clinging tightly. I will do my best because I have this child. Such daily happiness is suddenly taken away. When I get home, there is no one. There is no furniture, and the shell is empty.

Many such children have been taken away in Japan. The person who takes the child away is one of the parents (mostly the mother). In most developed countries, such as the West, this is a felony of kidnapping.

However, in Japan, “kidnapping of a real child” is not guilty and is carried out on a daily basis under the guidance of lawyers. Suddenly deprived of my beloved child, I can no longer see my child, and by continuing to pay only child support, I am mentally and economically driven, and parents (mostly fathers) commit suicide.

His father, Mr. A, who was the victim of such “abduction of his own child,” was disgraced by being made into a DV husband who violently acted on his wife in connection with his divorce proceedings. He filed a civil suit against a person. Defendants include lawyers, including former judges, as well as NPO representatives, university professors, and Asahi Shimbun editorial writer (at that time).

The complaint states that the defamation act they committed was “a systematic and systematic offense that was completely different from normal defamation,” and that “how great the mental distress and financial loss was.” It should be easy to imagine if the judge himself would receive a similar group lynch as an individual. “

Certainly, if the divorce proceedings are merely an expansion of the marital quarrel, as many as 39 people will be involved in one side of the marital quarrel, and the other side will be defamed as a group. It doesn’t make sense. Moreover, Mr. A has never met most of the 39 people and has no acquaintance at all.

So why did Mr. A end up being group lynched by 39 unfamiliar lawyers and former judges? That is because he stepped on the tiger’s tail of lawyers who live in the so-called divorce business.

The 39 defendants have various occupations and organizations to which they belong, and at first glance, they seem to have nothing to do with each other. However, the complaint stated, “The common point among the defendants is that they are involved in the abduction of children in Western countries, which is a criminal act to which kidnapping is applied, and the separation of parents and children, which clearly violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. , Those who hope that the act can continue to be carried out in Japan. “

The complaint also includes evidence of conspiracy, starting with Mr. A’s wife (at the time) and communicating with each defendant by email.

Mr. A’s case condenses the problems of “kidnapping a real child” that disrupts the family, hurt the heart of a small child, and drives one parent, and by looking at this case in detail, it is behind it. You can see the actual situation of the group that wriggles in the “real child kidnapping business”.

How are judges and lawyers at the center of the group generally involved in “kidnapping a child”?

A lawyer teaches how to “kidnap a real child”

Judges usually give custody to parents who have “kidnapped their children” based on the “principle of continuity” as described below. Therefore, in order to ensure the deprivation of custody, the lawyer recommends “kidnapping the child” to parents who are considering divorce and gives instructions on how to do it. This is not speculation. There is a lot of evidence.

In one women’s magazine, a lawyer proudly wrote, “The first response to a custody dispute is important. Whenever you leave home, take your child with you.”

In the book published by the Japan Law Foundation, at the beginning, “For a practitioner, a lawyer has a common sense in a divorce case in which there is a dispute over custody. Then, first of all, it means to secure the child under the client. “

If a lawyer invites one parent to abduct a child and bring a case, the judge will give custody as a reward.

Then, the lawyer puts a part of the child support that was stolen from the other parent into his pocket. As a thank-you, there are many cases where a judge is hired at a law firm when he retires.

Karakuri is quite simple, but many people don’t notice it. It’s hard to dream that a lawyer who advocates the ally of the weak and a judge who is supposed to be fair are cohesive in that way.

However, the reality of the court is completely different from what most people imagine. There is a blog of a famous court official who was also featured in parliamentary deliberations. There, he ridiculed the parents who had kidnapped their children and said, “A party who tries to commit suicide just because his request does not pass. If his request does not pass = the court is on the side of the other party. I’m delusional. It’s really annoying to jump out of the window if it’s no good. If it’s done in court, it’s difficult to get rid of it, so please stop it.

It’s not a delusion or anything.

This is the reality of the court. If a child is kidnapped and a divorce proceeding is filed by a spouse, the darkness of such judiciary awaits.

In order to regain his life with his child, Mr. A cut into the darkness of the “real child kidnapping business,” which is the common sense of lawyers. There, lawyers and judges were about to be thoroughly socially wiped out.

Lawless zone of “take away win”

There is an important trial called the Matsudo judgment over custody at the time of divorce.

Mr. A is actually a party to this Matsudo decision. Regarding the custody of the daughter who was taken away at the age of two, a first-instance judgment in March 2016 stated, “If I become a custody, I promised my wife, who is my mother, to visit my daughter for about 100 days a year. He decided that Mr. A, who proposed to “give custody to his wife if he broke,” was suitable as a custody holder, and granted Mr. A custody.

Prior to court precedents, visitation exchanges were held once a month, with supervision as the market price, and when recognizing parents, the “principle of continuity” was used to prioritize parents living together. ..

Among them, Matsudo is a groundbreaking decision that adopted the “friendly parent rule” that prioritizes “more forgiving parents” in order to enable children to grow up soundly with the affection of their parents. It was noticed. It was evaluated by many media as a name judgment reminiscent of Ooka Echizen’s “children’s struggle.”

However, the second-instance Tokyo High Court decision in January 2017 overturned the first-instance decision.

The judge said, “I will give custody to parents who have taken their children away,” but the reasoning needed to make such a decision is the infamous “principle of continuity.”

Based on this principle, a parent who deceives one parent and abducts the child while away and then completely cuts off contact between the child and the other parent is recognized as the parent. This principle is just a court practice that has no legal basis.

Rather, it produces “take-away” and no other developed country has adopted such a practice against the interests of the child in court.

In the second-instance Tokyo High Court decision, the judge clearly denied the “friendly parent rule” after adopting the principle of continuity, and decided to make Mr. A’s wife the custody of his daughter. The sentence states that “parent-child visits are not very important. 100-day visits a year may interfere with interaction with friends in the neighborhood and may not always benefit the child.” ..

In July of the same year, the Supreme Court rejected Mr. A’s appeal and was finalized. Originally, if the legal judgment is divided between the first and second trials, the Supreme Court must accept and deliberate. However, the Supreme Court decided not to accept it and even refused to deliberate. The presiding judge who made that decision is Kaoru Onimaru. A judge from a lawyer.

Japan is a “child abduction nation”

Internationally, Japan is a “child abduction nation,” and the recognition that its cause lies in the judiciary is becoming established.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Most Wanted Criminals list treats the names of Japanese women who returned to Japan with their children without the permission of their ex-husband, just like terrorists.

In the United States, public hearings have been held many times in parliament for nearly 10 years, and the Japanese judiciary not only refuses to hand over such “kidnappers” but also gives custody to “kidnappers”. He has repeatedly accused him of promoting “kidnapping of his own child” by doing so.

In addition, the US Department of State identified Japan as a non-compliance with the Hague Convention, which prohibits the abduction of children internationally, in its 2018 annual report on the abduction of children.

In March of the same year, 26 EU ambassadors issued a document appealing to Japan to respect the rights of children to meet their parents. In June last year, French President Emmanuel Macron raised the issue of “kidnapping a child” to Prime Minister Abe and said it was “unacceptable.”

Italian Prime Minister Conté also expressed concern to Prime Minister Abe at the G20 group meeting in the same month about parents’ rights to children.

In January of this year, it was reported that the Australian government requested the Japanese Ministry of Justice to amend the family law.

The background to this criticism from foreign governments is that the “kidnapping of children” by the Japanese and the actual situation of Japanese judiciary have been repeatedly reported overseas, and the feelings toward Japan have worsened.

“In France, where the tone of criticism of the Japanese judicial system is predominant, former chairman Ghosn’s theory of escape acceptance is deep-rooted. When the French newspaper Figaro asked the reader,’Is Mr. Ghosn fleeing from Japan right?’ 77% of respondents said they were right. “

I recently saw an article saying that, but one of the reasons why the tone of criticism of the Japanese judicial system has become dominant in France is thought to be the problem of “kidnapping a real child.”

If this Matsudo decision is not overturned by the Tokyo High Court and is finalized by the Supreme Court, or if the Supreme Court overturns the decision of the Tokyo High Court, the “real child kidnapping business” will not be possible in Japan, and now it is here. It should not have been criticized by other countries.

As soon as possible, we must end this infamous “principle of continuity” and make the court a place to put the interests of children first.

However, why isn’t “kidnapping of a real child”, which is so criticized by foreign countries, a social problem in Japan? The reason can be understood by looking at Mr. A’s case.

Personality attack with fake DV


If you tell a lie 100 times, it will be true …?

Return to Mr. A’s case. Immediately after the first-instance judgment, which overturned the court’s conventional practice, a relentless and relentless personality attack on Mr. A, 39 defendants, was launched. Below are a number of defamation acts filed by Mr. A this time.

◇ At a DV counselor training session sponsored by the Cabinet Office, where Defendant Keiko Kondo, a director (former representative) of the NPO National Women’s Shelter Net, is a lecturer, Defendant Chisato Kitanaka and Defendant Seiko Hijikata, who are co-representatives of the corporation, are training. We asked the participants of the meeting to create and distribute a villa that impressed Mr. A as a person performing domestic violence, and to sign a document requesting the High Court to review the first-instance judgment.

This issue has also been taken up by the Budget Committee and Legal Committee of the House of Representatives, and the Minister of State for Gender Equality of the Cabinet Office has responded to the act as “not desirable.” Defendant Kitanaka has been selected as a member of the “Study Group on Support for Private Shelter for Victims of Domestic Violence, etc.” sponsored by the Cabinet Office, despite the fact that this case was denounced in the Diet.

◇ Defendant Keiko Kondo said when she was interviewed by the Sankei Shimbun regarding the first-instance judgment, “DV is the logic of the perpetrator. In the case of support, there is no false charge DV. In this case as well, we I think my husband had been falsely accused of domestic violence. “” The mother did not unfairly remove her child, but the reality was an emergency evacuation to protect herself and her child from domestic violence. “

Therefore, it was reported as an article that gives the impression that Mr. A was actually doing DV. Defendant Kondo previously insisted in an interview with the Asahi Shimbun that “the fact that the victim is escaping (to the shelter) is clear evidence of domestic violence.”

◇ A total of 31 defendants, including Takayo Kamata, Noriko Kiyota, Hideki Saito, Yuichi Sakashita, and Masao Honda, who make up the defense team on the wife’s side, said at a press conference held at the Judiciary Press Club after the decision of the second trial Tokyo High Court. We distributed what we call “prepared materials” to the media.

The document states that Mr. A “screamed loudly, threw tableware, struck scissors, etc., so Mr. A’s wife ran away with her child,” and justified “kidnapping her child.” It was the content to be transformed. Following this press conference, it was reported on TV news that “the wife is claiming her husband’s domestic violence.”

Most of the defendants’ lawyers are called “human rights” lawyers. In particular, Takayo Kamata, the chief lawyer of the gable lawyer, is a big-name “human rights lawyer” who has served as chairman of the Chiba Bar Association and a director of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations.

The back face of “human rights groups”


What you are saying is the exact opposite of what you are doing!

◇ In addition to being the representative director of an NPO corporation, the “Ikumen (Nurturing MEN) Project Promotion Committee” (under the supervision of the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare), the “Children and Child-rearing Conference” (under the supervision of the Cabinet Office), and “Male leaders who accelerate the activities of shining women Defendant Hiroki Komazaki, who is a member or member of the “Kai” (Cabinet Office) and a member of the Citizens’ Council of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, said on Twitter (tens of thousands of followers) on the day of the second trial decision. It will not be handed over to (father). You can find out by examining the trial a little. “

◇ Yuki Senda, a university professor who specializes in feminism, gave a lecture at the Rengo Kaikan, impressing that Mr. A’s wife had “kidnapped her child” due to Mr. A’s violence.

Defendant Senda and Defendant Komazaki are distributing propaganda articles on the Internet that give the impression that parents who are victims of the “kidnapping of their own child” have a personality problem. For example, by placing a photo of a man with a knife next to a description that slanders his father, who is the victim of “kidnapping of a real child,” the victim of “kidnapping of a real child” is as perpetrator as a murderer. The method is very sophisticated, such as aiming for the effect of giving the reader an image like that.

◇ Defendant Souta Kimura, who was an editorial writer (at that time) of the Asahi Shimbun, picked up the law seminar article posted by Defendant Kamata as “Three points of the month selected by the editorial writer” in the Asahi Shimbun, and “visit after divorce”. It is an editorial that allows you to learn a lot about the ideal form of interaction and the harmful effects of the “Friendly Parent Rule.”

In addition, Defendant Chieko Akaishi, who was the representative of the NPO and an editorial writer of the Asahi Shimbun (at that time), re-quoted the article of Defendant Kimura on Twitter and added it as “important”, saying that there was violence by Mr. A. Spread the claim to.

Regarding this defendant Kamata’s article, a neutral lawyer wrote on his blog, “Kamada is” attacking “the plaintiff (Mr. A) who is the party, but it is logically broken that he cannot be blamed for reason. This article itself is a defamation target, as it criticizes “It is a proof of what you are doing” and “It is just a kind of one-sided abusive miscellaneous words of Attorney Kamata.” is there.

Nevertheless, Defendant Kimura and Defendant Akaishi praise this article for free. It is natural to think that there is a strong connection behind it.

One example of this connection is the fact that on January 27, this year, Defendant Akaishi submitted a “Request for Securing Child Support Collection” to the Minister of Justice as a representative of the National Council of Single Mother Support Organizations with Defendant Komazaki and others. ..

In addition to “support for seizure of child support,” the request also includes “not linked to the state of custody such as the joint custody system.” From this document, the remorse of conscience for robbing parents who are suffering from being deprived of their children and unable to meet can be felt.

Defendant Komazaki developed his own theory under the heading “Joint custody after divorce that hinders children’s rights” in the “Third Civilization” in December last year, and concluded that “I would like to do my best with the Komeito.”

The fact that this theory is completely false is that in February of last year, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child announced the results of the examination of the “Implementation Status of the Convention on the Rights of the Child” in Japan, “for the purpose of recognizing joint custody of children. Amend the law on parent-child relationships after divorce and ensure that children’s right to maintain personal relationships and direct contact with non-living parents can be exercised on a regular basis. ” It is clear from the fact that it contradicts the content.

Defendant Kimura has also disseminated falsehoods against the introduction of a joint custody system in which both parents jointly exercise custody after divorce.

For example, in his book, he used a ruling issued by the German Constitutional Court in 1982, claiming that “the provision of sole custody after divorce in Japan is rational.” However, this judgment is an epoch-making judgment that led to the legislation of the revision of the joint custody system after divorce, which ruled that the single custody system after divorce stipulated in the Civil Code was unconstitutional.

The method of introducing the judgment to the reader and manipulating the impression as if it were a judgment supporting sole custody is similar to the method of defamation for Mr. A this time.

◇ Defendants include former judges Tomiko Asada and Tatsushige Wakabayashi. Defendant Wakabayashi is the judge who was in charge of Mr. A’s case, and wrote the trial letter to defeat Mr. A. After defeating Mr. A, Wakabayashi went to the law firm where Mr. A’s wife’s agent, Defendant Sakashita, was located. In addition, Wakabayashi reported that he said, “It doesn’t matter what the Minister of Justice says,” in response to the Minister of Justice’s remarks such as “There is a’principle of continuity’and it should not be better to take it away.” The person who is being

“Personal destruction” by mass operation

In this way, personality attacks on Mr. A were simultaneously and frequently deployed in various places. It is a wonderful cooperative play.

In the complaint, “The defendant is threatened by the result of Mr. A’s victory in the first instance, so that it will not be confirmed by the Supreme Court as a precedent, and public opinion will not be directed to prohibit the removal or separation of children by parents. He tried to eradicate him from society by thoroughly declining his evaluation as a group. “

“Such an act is called” Character Assassination “in Europe and the United States, and is known as a method of mass manipulation. Instead of attacking the other party’s claim or act itself, the media systematically and systematically By manipulating the masses with such things as significantly lowering the social evaluation and image of the other party, the influence is neutralized. “

There is no evidence that Mr. A was doing domestic violence. In Matsudo’s decision, “(Mr. A’s wife against Mr. A) claims physical, economic, mental, and sexual violence as the cause of the marriage failure and the cause of the award. There is no sufficient evidence to admit. “

It is unusual to go so far in the judgment text. Unless the judge in charge is convinced that “there was no domestic violence,” I can’t write the words so far. It is presumed that Mr. A’s wife’s allegations were completely unfounded.

However, such a ruling can be completely overwritten if as many as 39 socially influential and credible people disseminate falsehoods at the same time.

Furthermore, looking at the complaint and the submitted evidence, Mr. A’s wife and the defendants colluded, saying, “The act of abducting the child by Mr. A’s wife and the defendants, and false to justify it. If you find an article that reports “the act of forging a DV”, you will put pressure on the reporter, writer, and editorial department who wrote the article, saying that you will make a trial, and make the article drop from the net. I also know that it was.

This is an act that violates freedom of expression and is a serious human rights violation that violates the provisions of the Constitution, but this is done by Sota Kimura, who calls himself a constitutional scholar, and lawyers called “human rights groups.” It’s ironic.

Defendants’ work has been successful so far, and the general public can only see articles that are convenient for them. There is an idiom that “If you say a lie 100 times, it will be true”, but these 39 people will realize that the word is true.

“Abduction of real child” to zero society

Getty logo

In today’s Japan, “kidnapping of real children” is carried out on a daily basis, and false DV is forged to justify it. Parents whose children have been kidnapped by those who carry out “kidnapping of their own children” are further branded as DV husbands and abusive mothers. Few media are trying to accuse society of the illegal situation.

Mr. A’s proceedings are a ray of light to overcome this situation.

It is the judge who is the defendant’s peer who will write the judgment, and it may be unlikely that a decent judgment will be issued. However, some courts have a human conscience, such as the judge in charge of Matsudo’s decision. I hope that the situation will change with the name judgment of Ooka Echizen.

Mr. A is planning to file a petition for change of parental authority in addition to the civil proceedings starting on March 10, this year. Despaired by the result of Matsudo’s decision being overturned in the second instance, he heard that some fathers committed suicide, not only for himself and his daughter, but also for parents and children suffering from “real child kidnapping” in this country. He thought that he should not give up, and decided to do so.

The mechanism by which a child can naturally meet both parents after the divorce of their parents is guaranteed by introducing the “friendly parent rule” presented in the Matsudo judgment. If this is adopted by the Supreme Court, Japanese society will change drastically.

This problem is a family problem that is the basis of Japanese society, a problem that is related to the state of the judiciary, which is one of the three powers, and a problem that is relevant to all people. Everyone may be in a position to be ridiculed by their children and grandchildren tomorrow, and a year later in court saying, “If you want to commit suicide, go outside the premises.”

I hope many people will take it seriously as their own. I want you to stand up together. Now is the time to regain proper justice and realize a society in which parents and children are not torn apart.
(Honorific title omitted in the text)

(First appearance: Monthly “Hanada” May 2020 issue)