Last year was an important one for child custody issues in Japan, with growing international pressure on Japan to sign the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, and the dramatic arrest of Christopher Savoie in September for supposedly "kidnapping" his own kids in Fukuoka.
I was actually interviewed for a segment on MSNBC's "Today Show" in connection with the Savoie case. Since the program quite rightly focused on an interview with Mr. Savoie, the footage used of me was quite brief: mostly a clip of me saying it was shocking how easily parental rights are terminated in Japan. But watching my (literally) 14 seconds of fame afterwards, I realized immediately that I had mis-spoken. What is shocking is not how easily parental rights are terminated, but how few parental rights there are to begin with.
While it is common to refer to divorce, custody and visitation as matters of "family law," strictly speaking Japan does not have such a thing. The principal body of what is generally considered family law is contained in Part IV of the Japanese Civil Code, which is actually titled "Relatives." In substance, it is concerned mainly with how family relationships are created, modified and terminated, and includes not just the rules by which marriages are formed and terminated, but also those governing the widespread practice of adoption (adult adoption remaining a common practice for households that wish to continue the family name, traditions or business but have no male children to do so).
Its a good article and I'm glad to see Professor Colins bringing the fundamental rights issue into the debate. Good work!
I wsa under the impression than a new registry was automatically started when someone got married? I don't remember my husband ever being given a choice about the matter when we got married; they asked him if he wanted to keep his honseki in his city of birth or move it to where we actually live, but leaving his parents' registry didn't seem that it was an option. He's the oldest (only) son, and he kept his honseki at his parents' address, I feel sure that if there had been an option to simply stay on his parents' koseki and add our children to it when they were born, he would have chosen that.
Is this another form of discrimination (only people who marry internationally are required to do it), a mistake on the part of the author, or just my ignorance (or my husband's?)?