Hague Convention Case

Hague Convention Case

We have been providing consultation and representation for both LBP (Left Behind Parents, parent whose child was removed from the country) and TP (parent who moved out of the country with the child) every year since we handled the first Hague convention case in Japan after the ratification of the Convention.

Our Main Achievements

• Incoming Cases (Cases where the child was brought to Japan from outside Japan)

Cases in which we represented the side of the LBP (Left Behind Parents)

・In a case where the child C was brought to Japan from Canada by B, the TP (Taking Parent), we represented A on the LBP (Left Behind Parent) side and filed a petition for a Hague Convention case to the Tokyo Family Court. The issue in this case was the permanent residence. The case was put into the mediation, and an agreement was reached to return the child, and the child was returned to Canada.

・We represented the LBP in an appeal stage of the Hague Convention case, in which the issue was the habitual residence and the existence of grounds for refusal of return of the child (Act for Implementation of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Article 28, Item 1, (ii), (iv) etc.). The Osaka High Court dismissed the appeal from the TP (Taking Parent) on November 29, 2021, and the child was returned to the U.S. in June 2022.

・We represented A on the LBP side, and after the return decision was made in the Hague Convention case, we worked with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to find the location of the child, C, and conducted an execution by substitute. After the execution by substitute was unsuccessful, our firm filed a habeas corpus petition to the Naha District Court Okinawa Branch. The court granted our petition and the child was handed over to A. A and C returned to the United States.

・Our firm represented A on the LBP side, in the Hague Convention case, and a return decision was made by the Tokyo Family Court. The Tokyo High Court dismissed an appeal filed by B on the TP side, and the decision to return the child C to an Eastern European country became final and binding. However, since B and her relatives continued to refuse to return C, we located B and C, filed a lawsuit for damages against B's parent D, who had assisted the refusal returning C, obtained an indirect order against D based on the winning judgment in the compensation case, and finally, filed a habeas corpus case. In the proceedings, a settlement to return C was reached, and C was subsequently returned to an Eastern European country.

Cases in which we represented the side of the TP (Taking Parents)

・We represented TP in a Hague Convention case in which the determination of the country of habitual residence was an issue, because the parties traveled back and forth between the U.S. and Japan. We won the case in the Tokyo Family Court and the Tokyo High Court. The Supreme Court upheld this decision. In this case, the Tokyo High Court established a standard for determining the country of habitual residence of a child, and determined that Japan was the country of habitual residence in this case. This case has a great significance in the legal practice.

 ・We represented the TP in a Hague Convention case in which the issue was whether there was other party’s (LBP) consent or not. The Tokyo High Court acknowledged that there was a consent from the LBP, and denied the LBP’s petition for the return, overruling the lower court’s decision.

• Outgoing Cases (Cases where the child was taken from Japan to outside Japan)

Cases in which we represented the side of the LBP (Left Behind Parents)

・We represented the LBP side and appointed a lawyer in Hong Kong. In cooperation with the Hong Kong lawyer, we filed a Hague Convention case to the Family Court in Hong Kong, and participated in the mediation process through video call, and in the process, a mediation agreement was reached to return the child to Japan, and the child was returned to Japan.

Cases in which a parent seeking to move out of the country with a child has obtained court permission to do so.

A Hague Convention case is a type of case in which the return of a child is sought after the child is taken away, whereas a relocation order case is a type of case in which the official permission of a parent or permission of the court is sought in advance to prevent the illegal removal of the child. In this regard, Hague Convention cases and Relocation Order cases are two sides of the same coin and very closely related.

・We represented plaintiff A in an international divorce case, and on March 29, 2021, the Tokyo Family Court granted A's request for divorce and granted custody of the child under Czech law. Subsequently, we represented A who wished to move to a foreign country with her child C, and a relocation order (permission to move) was granted by the Tokyo Family Court. The Tokyo High Court dismissed an appeal by the other party B, and the decision of the Tokyo Family Court was upheld.

・We represented TP in the first Hague Convention applicable case in Japan. We obtained a mediation agreement that allowed the child to move to the U.K. after returning the child to Japan once, and the child actually moved to the U.K.

In each of the above categories, we handle many other cases.