Counsel representing the defendant-state at district court in the parent-child related state redress lawsuits

What is it about?

Regarding concluded cases, I will depend on rulings to the extent that information is available. Regarding pending cases, I will depend on the most recent submission of the defendant state.

About the lawsuit

Summary

The plaintiffs (TBD) have been seperated from their parents and their minor children by the Rules of Domestic Relations Case Procedure Act (Family Procedures Act), unable to meet and participate in child-rearing. In violation of the Japanese Constitution and international treaties, their benefits and rights of child-rearing were not realized, so they formed a class and decided to sue the government in the coming weeks for damages with a state remand lawsuit.

Outline of the lawsuit

Faults in the law

The plaintiffs (TBD) suffered damages because of the following faults in the Family Procedure Rules related to arbitration, tribunal and protective measures cases.

  1. There is no definition of the interests of the child, and no decision guidelines based on the interests of the child. Sua sponte fact finding, an absence of sua sponte minor participation in procedures, and an unused minor procedure attorney system are the only statutes that exist.
  2. Despite using the “continuity principle” (not a law), procedures take from half a year to more than a year; there are no speedy procedures. Sua sponte hearing date setting are the only statutes that exist.
  3. Family court investigators hardly investigate the facts of non-custodial parents, denying the possibility that the non-custodial parent might be able to realize the interests of the child. Sua sponte fact investigation by an investigator are the only statues that exist。
  4. Because the necessary child support and visitation is not secured when separating or divorcing by conciliation/arbitration with a minor child, arbitration cases do not end successfuly, and child-rearing does not materialize. The principle of concilation first and sua sponte referral to conciliation are the only statutes that exist.
  5. Statutes for dispositions prior to conciliation and interlocutory orders exist, but theiy are not used in adjudication cases for dispositions regarding child custody. Interlocutory orders and dispositions prior to conciliation are only used for inheritance cases.

Constitution and Treaty violations

The above faults in the law violate the Japanese Constitution’s articles 13 (rights to life, freedom and happiness), 14 (equality under the law), 24 (equality in domestic relations and fundamental equality of the sexes), 32 (right to a trial), as well as statues about equality under the law, the right to a trial and the inseparability of parents and children in Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Thus, the plaintiffs (TBD) benefits and rights of child-rearing were lost, and they suffered damages. Furthermore, despite having a duty to legislate about these faults, the National Diet did not legislate for a long time, constituting an illegal lack of legislation.

Claim for damages

The National Diet was supposed to realize child-rearing benefits and rights, an illegal lack of legislation in violation of the Constitution of Japan and international treaties, et cetera. This lack of legislation violated the plaintiffs’ child-rearing benefits and rights, making the state liable for remand. Thus, the plaintiffs (TBD) seek damages.

Plantiff’s lawyer

Hiroyuki Hisataka, Attorney at Law (Dai-ichi Tokyo Bar Association, 54892)

Hirata Law Offices (Legal Profession Corporation)

1-2-27 Fujimi, Chiyoda City, Tokyo 102-0071 Japan

Cases

Visitation Class Action

The ruling does not list the names of the defendant’s counsel.

Joint Custody Lawsuit

According to the Defendant’s Brief 3, the counsel are as follows.

  1. Masahiro Kiyohira
  2. Yukihiro Motomura
  3. Fumiko Hattori
  4. Fumie Ohno
  5. Ryusuke Kurashige
  6. Tomoyuki Shida
  7. Ayumi Takahashi
  8. Daisuke Mishima
  9. Yuji Yamamoto

Child-rearing rights class-action

According to the Defendant’s Brief 1, the counsel are as follows.

  1. Masahiro Kiyohira
  2. Yukihiro Motomura
  3. Fumiko Hattori
  4. Fumie Ohno
  5. Ryusuke Kurashige
  6. Tomoyuki Shida
  7. Ayumi Takahashi
  8. Daisuke Mishima
  9. Yuji Yamamoto

Class-action to end Parental Child Abduction

According to the Defendant’s Brief 2, the counsel are as follows.

  1. Masahiro Kiyohira
  2. Yukihiro Motomura
  3. Fumiko Hattori
  4. Fumie Ohno
  5. Ryusuke Kurashige
  6. Tomoyuki Shida
  7. Ayumi Takahashi
  8. Daisuke Mishima
  9. Yuji Yamamoto

Natural parent-child rights class-action

According to the defendant’s Response, the counsel are as follows.

  1. Masahiro Kiyohira
  2. 昌寛 Takahashi
  3. Ryusuke Kurashige
  4. Tomoyuki Shida
  5. Ayumi Takahashi
  6. Daisuke Mishima
  7. Yuji Yamamoto

Free visitation class-action

According to the defendant’s Response, the counsel are as follows.

  1. Yukihiro Motomura
  2. Chiyako Kimizuka
  3. Nobu周 Ogata
  4. Hatano Norio
  5. Naoki Fujita
  6. Rintaro Nishi
  7. Daisuke Mishima
  8. Yuji Yamamoto

Wrapping up

According to all publicly available sources, the defendant’s counsel on all the parent-child lawsuits are the same. They also appear in the same order.

  1. Masahiro Kiyohira (57th class, page 15): He was a prosecutor in the following cases. He is an attorney at the Tokyo Legal Affairs Bureau, Litigation Section.
    1. H16 (wa) 894 Battery indictment case
  2. Masahiro Takahashi: 中国人との渉外婚姻届についての実務研究をされたことがあるようです。He defended the government in the following cases.
    1. 平成29年(行コ)第10004号 特許料納付書却下処分取消請求控訴事件
    2. 平成29年(行ウ)253号 特許料納付書却下処分取消請求事件
    3. 東京地方裁判所 判決 平成29年07月04日 目黒税務署における確定申告書の提出場所移設請求事件(税務訴訟資料(250号~)267号13031順号)
  3. Yukihiro Motomura (62nd class): He was a prosecutor in the following cases. He is an attorney at the Tokyo Legal Affairs Bureau, Litigation Section.
    1. H28 (wa) 66 Lethal negligent driving indictment case
  4. Fumiko Hattori: She defended the government in the following cases.
    1. Tokyo District Court Ruling H24/7/3 Legal person tax adjustment nullification claim case
    2. H20 (WA) 975 Damages claim case
    3. H21 (GYO U) 28 Adjustment and penalty application nullification claim case
    4. Niigata District Court Ruling H24/1/26 Income tax adjustment notification nullufication claim case
    5. Tokyo High Court Ruling H23/10/19 Income tax adjustment notification nullufication claim appeal
    6. Tokyo High Court Ruling H22/8/26 Adjustment nullification claim appeal
    7. Yokohama District Court ruling H22/7/28, Adjustment nullification claim case (Tax lawsuit Materials, Volume 260 sequence number 11483)
    8. Yokohama District Court ruling H22/7/28, Adjustment nullification claim case (Tax lawsuit Materials, Volume 260 sequence number 11484)
    9. Yokohama District Court ruling H22/7/28, Adjustment nullification claim case (Tax lawsuit Materials, Volume 260 sequence number 11485)
    10. Yokohama District Court ruling H22/7/28, Adjustment nullification claim case (Tax lawsuit Materials, Volume 260 sequence number 11486)
    11. Yokohama District Court ruling H22/7/28, Adjustment nullification claim case (Tax lawsuit Materials, Volume 260 sequence number 11487)
  5. Fumie Ohno: Tokyo Legal Affairs Bureau, Legal Affairs Officer
  6. Ryusuke Kurashige (62nd class): He tried the following cases as a judge. He is an attorney of the Civil Affairs Bureau at the Ministry of Justice.
    1. H22 (WA) 15843 Injunction to stop building works, etc
    2. H21 (WA) 15670 Damages claim case
  7. Tomoyuki Shida (65th class): He tried the following cases as a judge. He is an attorney of the Civil Affairs Bureau at the Ministry of Justice.
    1. H29 (wa) 187 Lethal battery indictment case
    2. H28(wa)359 Lethal battery and rules of the road violation indictment case
    3. H29(wa)221 Lethal dangerous driving indictment case
    4. H29(wa)311 Trespassing in a building, injurious theft, firearms and swords possesion control law violation indictment case
    5. H29(wa)355 Lethal battery indictment case
    6. H28(YO)44 事務所使用禁止等仮処分命令申立事件
    7. H28(wa)247 Murder and attempted murder indictment case
    8. H25(WA)822 Damages claim case
    9. H26(GYO U)23 療養及び休業補償不支給処分取消請求事件
    10. H26(GYO U)8 未支給年金等不支給決定取消請求事件
    11. H26(GYO U)5 Reversal of driving license validity suspension claim case
    12. H24(WA)486 Damages claim case
    13. H25(WA)34 Damages claim case
    14. H25(WA)801 Damages claim case
    15. H22(GYO U)13 政務調査費返還履行等請求事件
    16. H25(GYO U)28 災害弔慰金不支給決定取消請求事件
    17. H25(GYO U)8 環境区域内行為許可取消請求事件
    18. H25(RE)46 Unjust enrichment claim appeal
    19. H23(WA)1825 Reparations claim case
  8. Ayumi Takahashi (66th class): She tried the following cases as a judge. She is an attorney of the Civil Affairs Bureau at the Ministry of Justice.
    1. H25 (WA) 4212 Damages claim case
    2. H29 (YO) 45 暴力団組事務所使用禁止等仮処分命令申立事件
    3. H26 (WA) 12212 Damages claim case
    4. H26 (WA) 49 Damages claim case
  9. Daisuke Mishima: Ministry of Justice, Civil Affairs Bureau, First Unit Chief reporting to the Civil Legal Affairs Administrator
  10. Yuji Yamamoto: Ministry of Justice, Civil Affairs Bureau, Officer reporting to the Civil Legal Affairs Administrator

Conclusion

The defendant-state’s counsel include persons that have experience as judges, prosecutors and district attorneys.

Other resources that might interest you