Japan’s Ambassador to Australia defends child custody laws

I was appalled by Chris Zappone and Eryk Bagshaw’s article “Japan and Australia face off over child abductions” in the Age and Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday 15 December 2021.

By mischaracterising and misrepresenting the facts, the article is regrettably inflammatory.

I have to point out that the article is dishonest in implying that Japan disregards international norms, including the Hague Convention. I explicitly explained in the interview that the removal of children takes place both ways, and that out of the four cases where requests were made to Australia by Japan through the Hague Convention to return removed children to their home country, none resulted in their return. Over the same period, in the case of requests to Japan by Australia via the Hague Convention to return removed children, out of 11 requests, 4 have already resulted in the return of children.

Japan’s Ambassador to Australia Shingo Yamagami Credit: Alex Ellinghausen

While enforcing court decisions on custody cases remains challenging not only in Japan but also in any other country, Japan has been taking concrete steps to improve the effectiveness of enforcement. Since relevant laws were revised in April 2020, 80 per cent of court decisions to return children to the country of their habitual residence have been successfully enforced through the Hague Convention. The article intentionally chose not to mention these facts.

Parental removal of children also takes place within national borders, in which case respective domestic laws of each country apply. It is a stated policy and established practice of Japan to fairly and equitably address all cases of child removal, regardless of the nationality of the parent, in order to seek a solution that is in the best interests of the child. The article blatantly insinuates that relevant Japanese laws are biased in favour of “removing” parents and Japanese nationals. True mates recognise that there are differences between our legal systems, in the spirit of fairness, mutual understanding and respect.

It was saddening to read the article’s portrayal of me as being indifferent to the anguish of Australian parents who have had their children removed. I went through a divorce to a Japanese spouse and have had my son removed from me. I cannot imagine anything more painful than not being able to see one’s child. I know that the pain never goes away.

Yet I do contest the use of the term “child abduction” for these cases. The word “abduction” is used for the state crime committed by North Korea, which brutally kidnapped innocent Japanese men and women, including a teenaged girl, from their loved ones. This should not be conflated with the removal of children by their parents, however painful the experience is for parents and children alike, as I know myself.

The authors should understand that inflammatory rhetoric, confounded by half-truths and outright misinformation, is against the best interests of children suffering from the separation of their parents. What is most needed is hard work and constructive dialogue among all those who share a genuine wish to protect the wellbeing of the children.

Shingo Yamagami is the Ambassador of Japan to Australia