福岡家庭裁判所に審判申立
末期がんで余命わずかな父のために、子供と面会させてほしいと元妻に頼んだが、元妻が300万円払え、払わないなら会わさない、と恐喝してきた。
当事者ではどうしようもなく、履行勧告の時に逆に面会を控えろと指示してきた東京家裁は当てにならないので、結局弁護士に依頼。着手金で数十万かかったが、約束を守らない元妻に300万円払うよりは安いし、まだマシだろう。
親権者変更と子の引渡しの審判を福岡家庭裁判所に申し立てた。
弁護士の話では、元妻が福岡に逃げたため、東京家裁の調査官は履行勧告のときに手を抜いたのだろうとのこと。福岡家裁なら近いのでちゃんと調査してくれると期待できるそうな。
同じ日本でありながら、福岡には法の支配が及ばないらしい。家庭裁判所では法の考え方が違うようだ。
FPICは家裁調査官の天下り先
家庭問題情報センター（Family Problems Information Center：FPIC）は，家庭紛争の調整や非行少年の指導に長年携わってきた元家庭裁判所調査官たちが、その豊富な経験と人間関係の専門知識，技法を広く活用し、 健全な家庭生活の実現に貢献することを目的として設立された公益法人です。
http://www1.odn.ne.jp/fpic/gyoumu_1.htm
各地に相談室を設置して、夫婦仲の調整や離婚などの夫婦の問題、離婚後の子をめぐる問題、いじめなど子育ての悩み、ひきこもりなど成人した子の悩み、老親をめぐる兄弟間の悩み、職場の人間関係や男女関係のトラブルあるいは生き方や性格の悩みなど、人間関係、子育てやこころの問題についての相談に応じています。
ご大層に掲げているが、FPICは退職した家裁調査官の天下り先に過ぎず、やってることは一昔前の家裁実務のカーボンコピーに過ぎない。担当している元調査官は自分たちが家裁に在籍していた当時の慣習に縛られているため、離婚後の別居親と子供の面会交流には極めて消極的。
逆に、養育費の取立ては極めて積極的で、離婚後面会の約束をしながら子供を連れて無断で遠方に引っ越した同居親に露骨に味方する。子供と会いたい別居親が面会の仲介を求めても、FPICの職員は「養育費も払っていないくせにずうずうしい」などと露骨に別居親を見下し、面会できるかどうかは保障しないが養育費は払え、と”教育的指導”を別居親に対してのみ行う。
家裁で決めた調停調書に書いてあることも無視して同居親の味方をする。
考えてみれば、離婚後、親権を失った親と子供の交流なんて潰して当たり前、養育費は分捕って当たり前という親子引き離しが家庭裁判所で猛威を振るった時代に家裁に在籍していた奴らなのだから、そういう奴らの吹き溜まりであるFPICがそういう性格なのも当たり前なんだろう。
実際、こいつらにとっての離婚後の家族関係＝養育費ONLY、なのだ。
公益社団法人家庭問題情報センターは、平成１９年１０月以降、毎年厚生労働省「養育費相談支援センター」事業の委託を受けています。 養育費相談支援センターは全国の養育費専門相談員、母子自立支援員、自治体職員等のための相談支援事業、研修事業、情報提供事業を行っています。 また、ご本人などからの直接電話やメールによる相談も行っています。
http://www1.odn.ne.jp/fpic/gyoumu_1.htm
養育費相談支援センター ホームページ
http://www.youikuhi-soudan.jp/
最近になって、面会交流もやってます、的な顔をしているが、奴らの家裁現役時代、家裁は面会交流を潰す方向でしか対応していないのだから、そもそも面会交流支援のノウハウを持っていない。肩書きだけは「元家裁調査官」だが、実態は面会交流支援のド素人。
元妻が子供との面会の見返りに300万円を要求
離婚調停時に、私は子供と月1回宿泊を含む面会の約束を元妻と合意した*1。
しかし、離婚が成立した途端、元妻は一切面会交流に応じなくなった。そればかりか、子供に父親である私を泥棒であると虚偽の事実を吹き込んで洗脳した。
当事者間で何度も交渉したが、元妻は福岡という遠方に逃げた安心感と親権を得た増長から、傲慢な態度で拒否し、「子供はお前に会わなくなって喜んでいる」「お前からの手紙が来るたびに子供の様子がおかしくなる」などの執拗な嫌がらせを行ってきた。
調停を行った東京家庭裁判所に履行勧告を申し立てたが、家裁調査官は元妻に電話しただけで何も確かめることなく、「お子さんが会いたがっていないようですからしばらく面会を控えてはどうですか」と、東京家裁内で合意した調停内容の反故を逆に私に薦めてくる始末*2。
履行勧告なんて、家裁の自己満足、仕事してマスというアピール以外に何の役にも立たない無駄な制度だってことがよくわかった。
この時点で、元妻や家裁から騙されたことに気づいたけど、国家権力相手ではどうにもならない。東京家庭裁判所は、面会交流の合意がちゃんと守られているか調べて親権者を指導する面倒な仕事よりも、親権者に阿って面会を求める別居親を排除する楽な仕事を選んでいる。例えるなら、強姦魔が家に居座ってレイプを繰り返しているのに、裁判所は強姦魔を逮捕せず被害者に強姦魔との結婚を勧めているようなもの、東京家裁は強姦魔の味方をしているのだ。
結局、私はしばらく面会を諦めざるを得ないと判断して3ヶ月ほど元妻への連絡を控えた。何より元妻が冷静になって面会に協力的になってくれなければ面会が成立しない。調停合意なんて何の役にも立たず、ひたすら親権者のご機嫌を伺わなければ、実の息子に会うことすらできない。家裁は知らん顔。
しかし、8月になって問題が起きた。私の父、息子にとっての実の祖父に末期がんが見つかり余命1ヶ月と宣告された。
父は初孫である子供を大変可愛がっていたが、元妻が面会を妨害してからまともに孫の顔を見ることもできなかった。私は、一目でも孫の顔を見せてやりたいと思って、ただひたすら低姿勢に元妻にお願いした。
「土下座でも何でもするから、どうか父に孫の顔を見せてやってほしい」
それに対する元妻の返事は
「あわせてほしいなら300万円払え」
というもの。こちらの弱みにつけこんで親権者であることを利用して子供との面会に300万円と吹っかけてきた。
そんな大金、すぐに準備できないと、とりあえず低姿勢に譲歩をお願いしたが、元妻は
「借金しろ。300万円の振込みを確認したら子供を連れて行く」
と回答。
元妻のやっていることは、子供の面会を人質にとった身代金要求だし、恐喝。
しかし、警察に相談したが、刑法上の犯罪にはならないと門前払い。警官が言ったのは「払う義務はありません」というセリフ。お前、子供が誘拐された親にそのセリフ言えるのか？
払う義務はない、そんなことは知っている。調停合意の中に債権債務がないことを確認する記載があるんだから、調停合意外の不当な金銭要求であることは誰が見てもわかる。
しかし払わなければ、がんに冒された父親は孫の顔を見ることすら適わず死んでしまう。
日本では、余命わずかな老親に孫の顔を見せたいと思う孝行につけこんで子供との面会を大金で売ろうとするような行いを、「母性」と呼ぶらしい。
レイくん、5歳の誕生日おめでとう
ママに伝言を頼むと、ママは、パパを嫌っている態度を露骨に示して、レイくんが嫌な思いをするから、ここに誕生日おめでとうと書きます。
神戸のおじいちゃんとおばあちゃんも、会えなくてもレイくんの誕生日を祝ってくれています。
2012/07/08 7:58
れいくんおたんじょうおめでとう、じいちゃんとばあちゃんでお祝いしたよ。もちをたべたんだよ。きみの未来を祝うような絶好の天気だね、幸せあれ。
いつの日か、ママの妨害なく、洗脳の影響も受けずに、ちゃんとレイくんに会える日が来ますように。
ママがレイくんにパパを嫌うように洗脳する虐待を止めますように。
わがまま
元妻と結婚した時、私は部屋に荷物が多かった。
元妻も荷物が多かった。
また、結婚後半年くらいで家を買う予定にしていた。
そのため、すぐに同居せず、少なくとも荷物は元妻の住んでいたマンションに置いておいては、と提案したが元妻はもったいない、言下に拒絶。しかし、元妻の私のマンションへの引越し費用、その際、私の洗濯機や冷蔵庫が捨てられることになり*1、それでも部屋は狭くなり、生活に不便をきたした。
元妻はクイーンサイズのベッドを無理やり持ち込み、部屋のほとんどを占領した挙句、狭いと文句を言った*2。
片付けに際し、元妻は指示だけして荷物を上げ下げを私にやらせたが、精神的に応えたのは一度片付けたものを向きを変えて欲しいと何度も入れ替えさせられたことだ。
同居後すぐ、部屋が狭い、片付いていないと文句を言い始めた元妻に対し、荷物が多すぎるから、捨てるか、実家に送るかしかないと言うと、元妻は自分のものを処分することは断固拒絶た上で、「捨てるのはもったいない」「送るのは送料がもったいない」と選択肢を封じ、さらに狭いと文句を言い続けた。
このため、已む無く元妻に内緒でレンタル倉庫を借りて、元妻がいないタイミングを狙って自分の物を少しずつ移動した((今にして思えば、捨てるか実家に送るかしておいた方が良かったのだが、この時には既に元妻の洗脳術にかかりはじめていたのだと思う。)。
昨日・今日はきれいな満月
スーパームーンというらしい。
元妻に連れ去られた怜くんは、この月を見ているだろうか。
アメリカ下院決議1326号
HRES 1326 IH
111th CONGRESS 2d Session
H. RES. 1326
Calling on the Government of Japan to immediately address the growing problem of abduction to and retention of United States citizen minor children in Japan, to work closely with the Government of the United States to return these children to their custodial parent or to the original jurisdiction for a custody determination in the United States, to provide left-behind parents immediate access to their children, and to adopt without delay the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
05-5-10
Mr. MORAN of Virginia (for himself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Mr. BECERRA) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs
RESOLUTION
Calling on the Government of Japan to immediately address the growing problem of abduction to and retention of United States citizen minor children in Japan, to work closely with the Government of the United States to return these children to their custodial parent or to the original jurisdiction for a custody determination in the United States, to provide left-behind parents immediate access to their children, and to adopt without delay the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
Whereas Japan is an important partner with the United States and shares interests in the areas of economy, defense, the promotion of global peace and prosperity, and the mutual protection of the human rights of the two nations' respective citizens in the increasingly integrated global society;
Whereas the Government of Japan acceded to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states under Article 16 (1), `Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution', and Article 16 (3), `The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State';
Whereas the Government of Japan acceded in 1979 to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that states `States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children [Article 23]';
Whereas according to Japan's National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, 44,701 marriages between a Japanese national and a foreigner were registered in Japan in 2006, and 17,102 divorces were registered in Japan in 2006 between a Japanese national and foreigner;
Whereas since 1994 the Office of Children's Issues (OCI) at the United States Department of State had opened 194 cases involving 269 United States citizen minor children abducted to or wrongfully retained in Japan, and as of March 25, 2010, OCI had 85 open cases involving 121 United States citizen minor children abducted to or wrongfully retained in Japan;
Whereas since the signing of the Treaty of Peace with Japan (San Francisco Treaty) between the Allied Powers and the Government of Japan in 1951, the Japanese Government has never issued and enforced a legal decision to return a single abducted child to the United States;
Whereas Japan has not acceded to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Hague Convention), resulting in the continued absence of an immediate civil remedy that as a matter of urgency would enable the expedited return of abducted children to their custodial parent in the United States where appropriate, or otherwise immediately allow access to their United States parent;
Whereas the Government of Japan is the only G-7 country that has not acceded to the Hague Convention;
Whereas the Hague Convention would not apply to abductions occurring before the accession of Japan to the Hague Convention, requiring, therefore, that Japan create a separate parallel process to resolve the abductions of all United States citizen minor children who currently remain wrongfully removed to or retained in Japan, including the 121 United States citizen minor children who have been reported to the United States Department of State and who are being held in Japan against the wishes of their parent in the United States and, in many cases, in direct violation of a valid United States court order;
Whereas the Hague Convention provides enumerated defenses designed to provide protection to children alleged to be subjected to physical or psychological abuse in the left-behind country;
Whereas United States laws against domestic violence extend protection and redress to Japanese spouses;
Whereas there are numerous acknowledged cases, such as the Jade and Michael Elias case, of Japanese consulates located within the United States issuing or reissuing travel documents of dual-national minor children in violation of United States court orders restricting travel and in violation of United States Federal criminal parental kidnapping statutes;
Whereas there are numerous cases in which the actions of the Government of Japan evidence a disregard of United States law and jurisdiction, other cases show indifference to the United States and customary international jurisprudence in the area of family law, which overwhelmingly reflects the worldwide preference for the resolution of parenting disputes by negotiated joint custody;
Whereas Japan's existing family law system does not recognize joint custody nor actively enforce parental access agreements for either its own nationals or foreigners, there is little hope for minor children to have contact with the noncustodial parent in violation of internationally recognized and protected rights;
Whereas there exists no due process within the Japanese family court system for the redress of such disputes, and the existing system has no recognized process to enforce a custody or parental access order from outside of Japan or within it, without the voluntary cooperation of the abducting parent or guardian;
Whereas the Government of Japan has repeatedly claimed to foreign governments that parental child abduction is not considered a crime in Japan despite the fact that Article 3 of the Japanese Penal Code does indeed make it a crime for a Japanese citizen to abduct a child and move the child across national borders, even if the child is moved to Japan;
Whereas the Government of Japan has refused to prosecute an abducting parent or relative criminally when that parent or relative abducts the child into Japan;
Whereas according to the United States Department of State's April 2008 Report on Compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, abducted children are at risk of serious emotional and psychological problems and have been found to experience anxiety, eating problems, nightmares, mood swings, sleep disturbances, aggressive behavior, resentment, guilt, and fearfulness, and as adults may struggle with identity issues, their own personal relationships, and parenting;
Whereas left-behind parents may encounter substantial psychological, emotional, and financial problems, and many may not have the financial resources to pursue civil or criminal remedies for the return of their children in foreign courts or political systems;
Whereas Erika Toland was abducted in 2003 from Negishi United States Navy Family housing in Yokohama to Tokyo, Japan, by her now deceased mother and is being held by her Japanese maternal grandmother, while being denied access to her father since 2004;
Whereas Melissa Braden was covertly abducted from her home in 2006 by her mother to Japan in violation of previous Los Angeles Superior Court orders giving both parents access to the child and prohibiting international travel (travel to Japan) with the child by either parent and has since been denied any contact with her father;
Whereas Kai Hachiya was abducted in 2006 to Japan by his father, who had been found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have physically and mentally abused Kai's mother who had been awarded sole custody in the State of Hawaii, and as a result, Kai has had limited contact with his mother;
Whereas Isaac and Rebecca Savoie were abducted in 2009 to Japan by their mother in violation of a Tennessee State court order of joint custody and Tennessee statutes, and have been denied any access or communication with their father, despite their father having been awarded sole custody of them by a United States court;
Whereas Karina Garcia was abducted to Japan in 2008 by her mother, who was ordered by the United States courts to return Karina to the care of her sole custodian father in the United States, but the order to return of the child has not been granted even though the sole custody order had been recognized by the Osaka High Court;
Whereas United States citizen minor children who have been abducted to Japan are being deprived of their United States heritage;
Whereas, on October 16, 2009, the Ambassadors to Japan of Australia, Canada, France, Italy, New Zealand, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States, all parties to the Hague Convention, called upon Japan to accede to the Hague Convention and meanwhile to identify and implement measures to enable parents who are separated from their children to establish contact with them and to visit them;
Whereas, on January 30, 2010, the Ambassadors to Japan of Australia, France, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, the Charges d'Affaires ad interim of Canada and Spain, and the Deputy Head of Mission of Italy, called on Japan's Minister of Foreign Affairs, submitted their concerns over the increase in international parental abduction cases involving Japan and affecting their nationals, and again urged Japan to sign the Hague Convention;
Whereas the Governments of the United States and the French Republic have recently established bilateral commissions with Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs to share information on and seek resolution of outstanding Japanese parental child abduction cases;
Whereas the bilateral commission is limited by the fact that it does not currently include Japan's Ministry of Justice, which has jurisdiction over family law;
Whereas Japan's Justice Minister Keiko Chiba said upon her appointment that she is determined to show that Japan `is very proactive' in adopting international protocols and conventions that are the `international standard'; and
Whereas it is critical for the Governments of the United States and Japan to work together to prevent future incidents of international parental child abduction to Japan, which damages children, families, and Japan's national image with the United States: Now, therefore, be itResolved, That--
(1) the House of Representatives--
(A) condemns the abduction and retention of all minor children being held in Japan away from their United States parents in violation of their human rights and United States and international law;
(B) calls on the Government of Japan to immediately facilitate the resolution of all abduction cases, to recognize United States court orders governing persons subject to jurisdiction in a United States court, and to make immediately possible access and communication for all children with their left-behind parents;
(C) calls on the Government of Japan to include Japan's Ministry of Justice in work with the Government of the United States to facilitate the identification and location of all United States minor citizen children alleged to have been wrongfully removed to or retained in Japan and for the immediate establishment of a protocol for the resolution of existing cases of abduction, interference with parental access to children, and violations of United States court orders;
(D) calls on the Government of Japan to establish immediately a protocol and timetable to amend its Civil Code to allow for enforceable rights of parental access and communication between minor children and their divorced or separated parents including parents who are not Japanese citizens;
(E) calls on the Government of Japan to review and amend its consular procedures to ensure that travel documents for minor children are not issued in violation of United States court orders;
(F) calls on Japan to accede to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction without delay and to promptly establish judicial and enforcement procedures to facilitate credibly the immediate return of children to their habitual residence and to establish protocols for the organization of rights of international parental access; and
(G) calls on the President of the United States and the Secretary of State to seek immediately to identify credibly all United States citizen minor children who have been wrongfully removed to and who are retained currently in Japan and to raise the issue of abduction and wrongful retention of those United States citizen minor children in Japan with Japanese officials and domestic and international press; and(2) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should--
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=164155356932122
(A) recognize the issue of child abduction to and retention of United States citizen minor children in Japan as a central foreign policy issue of paramount importance to the United States within the context of its bilateral relationship with Japan;
(B) work with the Government of Japan to enact consular procedures and legal agreements to prevent parental abduction to and retention of United States citizen minor children in Japan;
(C) encourage the Government of Japan to adopt the policy of not issuing duplicate passports when a United States judge has restricted a child's travel or ordered the surrender of passports and to otherwise require notarized signatures from both parents before issuing a passport to a child;
(D) review its advisory services made available to United States citizens from the Department of State, the Department of Justice, and other government agencies to ensure that effective and timely assistance is given to United States citizens in preventing the incidence of wrongful retention or removal of minor children and acting to obtain the expeditious return of their children from Japan;
(E) review its advisory services made available to members of the United States Armed Forces, particularly those stationed in Japan by the Department of Defense and the United States Armed Forces, to ensure that effective and timely assistance is given to them, including providing legal assistance in preventing the incidence of wrongful retention or removal of minor children and acting to obtain the expeditious return of their dependent children from Japan at the conclusion of their tour of duty in Japan;
(F) call upon the Secretary of Defense to include the issues of child abduction and the protection of members of the United States Armed Forces and their families stationed abroad in any current or future status of forces agreement;
(G) call upon the Secretary of State to enact immediately a Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Japan to establish a bilateral protocol with procedures to address immediately any parental child abduction or access issue reported to the United States Department of State; and
(H) urge the Department of State to include international child abduction and Japan's actions regarding abductions as a human rights violation under its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.
