≡ Menu

Korean mother trying to get her kid back after English teacher husband runs away to America with child

Very interesting story from Yonhap (later picked up by Ye Old Chosun, Dong-A Ilbo, etc.) about a Korean mother trying to get her kid back after her American father ran away with the child to America.

Unfortunately for her, she’s running into serious problems, mostly of Korea’s own making it would seem.

The mother, 40-year-old Kim Hyeon-jeong (fake name), has filed a suit in a US court and sent petitions to Korean-American groups in the United States, and she is considering all means of getting her kid back, but so far nothing is working.

Kim married her husband, 42-year-old American English teacher Brian Smith (fake name), in 2005 after several years of dating. In February of this year, however, her husband ran away to the United States with their 15-month-old child while Kim was at work.

Kim claims a lot of planning went into this. Her husband, who had a lot of complaints about Korean culture and his life in Korea which apparently wer later by marital discord, conducted a test run to take away her child with an American work colleague. And one month prior to running away to the States, he turned in Kim’s US green card (Marmot’ Note: Is that possible?).

Kim looked for ways to get her child back, but Korea’s status as a non-party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction has proven a stumbling block.

In case you were wondering what that convention was, this is from the Wikipedia link above:

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, or Hague Abduction Convention is a multilateral treaty developed by the Hague Conference on Private International Law that provides an expeditious method to return a child internationally abducted by a parent from one member nation to another.

Currently, 84 countries are party to the convention.

Korea, however, is not one of them. A bill to join the convention was introduced to the 18th National Assembly, but it got tied up in committee and automatically died with the beginning of the 19th National Assembly.

In April, Kim filed for divorce in a Korean court and was granted custody of her kid.

She then submitted the Korean court’s decision to a district court in Oklahoma, where her now ex-husband and child live, and asked that her child be handed over.

The US court, however, deferred executing the Korean court’s decision for 60 days, saying it could not determine whether Korean court decisions regarding foreigners were fair. In September, the US court outright refused to execute the Korean court’s decision, arguing that Korea was a non-party to the Hague Abduction Convention and Korean courts were so biased against Americans that it approached the level of a human rights violation.

Ouch.

Kim appealed the decision, and the matter has gone to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Clutching at straws, she is also senting petitions to Korean-American groups in the United States, including the Korean American Women’s Association- USA (KAWAUSA) and Korean-American groups in Oklahoma and Texas.

She has also sent petitions to several National Assembly committees asking that they get the Hague Abduction Convention passed,

Meeting with Yonhap, Kim asked that (the National Assembly, presumably) boost Korea’s international prestige as a nation of human rights by joining the Hague Abduction Convention and prevent a recurrence of this tragedy where a parent cannot get her child back just because she is Korean.

Marmot’s Note: Look at the map of Hague Abduction Convention signatories, and you’ll notice most of Asia isn’t party to it. In particular, Japan has earned notoriety for parental child abductions. Singapore entered into the convention this year, with the US State Department praising Singapore for “serving as a role model in the region.” Japan submitted legislation in March to join the convention, but much to some parents’ chagrin, it hasn’t gone anywhere since. Last year, US State Department Special Advisor for International Children’s Issues Susan Jacobs was in Seoul urging Korea to join the Hague Abduction Convention, arguing that it would be to Korea’s benefit with the growing number of international marriages in Korea.

Japan’s hesitance to join can best be explained—at least according to Wiki—to the way Japan’s legal system handled child custody issues:

The main impediment to Japan’s signing the convention is that it would require an overhaul of the Japanese legal system. Japanese family law considers issues of divorce custody, child support or alimony as predominantly private matters. Consequently, Japan has no enforcement mechanism to enforce foreign custody rulings or recommendations made by its own domestic courts. Furthermore, Japan does not recognise joint parental authority or shared “residence” after divorce. As a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, however, Japan is supposed to recognize the right of a child to obtain non-custodial parent visitation. However, the Supreme Court of Japan has recently ruled[when?] that this does not amount to the right of non-custodial parents to see their children (it has ruled that state-enforced visitation is the right of neither parent nor children). This ruling, in effect, makes visitation without the cooperation of the custody-holding parent a practical impossibility.

Japan has also argued, apparently, that the convention would not protect Japanese women from abusive foreign husbands:

Japan has argued that becoming a signatory of the convention may not protect Japanese women and their children from abusive non-Japanese husbands.[72] According to an editorial from the Asahi Shimbun, a significant number of parental abduction cases filed in North America and Europe involve Japanese wives,[73] and of those wives a number of them claim their husbands were abusive.

As for why Korea won’t join the convention, I suspect the reasons are similar to those of Japan. Most of the Korean-language articles I’ve read seem fairly positive about the convention, especially now, with international marriages on the rise and the spectre of spouses fleeing home with the kids growing. I also suspect the changing gender dynamics of international marriage in Korea might help boost enthusiasm for joining the convention, much in the way said dynamics helped boost understanding and sympathy for international marriage as a whole.

About the author: Just the administrator of this humble blog.

  • http://coryinkorea.wordpress.com/ 코리아

    So hard to know what to think about these stories, especially since it’s impossible to know the whole story and what events led to this result. I could never imagine taking my twins away from their mother, but of course I can’t guess what I would do if I was faced with the prospect of losing them in the Korean courts. Of course the biggest victim in all of this is the child as, no matter the results, the parents seem to have little interest in doing what’s best for her.

  • R. Elgin

    In September, the US court outright refused to execute the Korean court’s decision, arguing that Korea was a non-party to the Hague Abduction Convention and Korean courts were so biased against Americans that it approached the level of a human rights violation.

    This is very sad for the child and yet another sign that further reforms are needed in Korean law and not just for the sake of foreigners but for the benefit of all who seek recourse to the Korean legal system. I am sure a lawyer could say more about this than I could but it is sad to read of this all the same.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    “The US court, however, deferred executing the Korean court’s decision for 60 days, saying it could not determine whether Korean court decisions regarding foreigners were fair. In September, the US court outright refused to execute the Korean court’s decision, arguing that Korea was a non-party to the Hague Abduction Convention and Korean courts were so biased against Americans that it approached the level of a human rights violation.”

    Can you source* this?

    “ouch”

    Much like when she shows up in that little black dress: understated but says so much.

    //*******************
    *Is “source” a verb?)

  • jkitchstk

    Susan Jacobs was supposedly in S. Korea this week discussing international adoption rules…
    “WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 (Yonhap) — A senior U.S. envoy on children’s issues will travel to South Korea later this week for consultations on Seoul’s long-overdue entry into an international treaty on adoption, officials here said Monday.
    Amb. Susan Jacobs, the special advisor for children’s issues at the State Department, is scheduled to visit Seoul from Wednesday to Friday.”

    The state of these type of affairs in S. Korea, Japan, etc…have to do with protecting males over females but only when the foreign male enters into things does this really matter.

  • http://www.chinasmack.com/tag/funny/page/3 Jakgani

    This is very sad for the child

    Why is it sad? except for the fact that the child now lives solely with her father – without her mother.

    The 42 y.o. American dates a Korean female for several years – they eventually marry and have a daughter.

    The marriage was falling apart.

    The Korean lady wanted sole custody of the daughter.

    The American had lots of complaints about Korea, decided to leave Korea and took HIS daughter with him.

    Why should the Korean mother get to keep the child?
    Doesn’t the father also have a right to raise his daughter in America?

    It reminds me of Kobe Lee, the 7 year old mixed race “African-American-Korean” boy whose American mother won custody of him, but the KOREAN-American father kidnapped him and took him to Korea to live with him.

    http://asiancorrespondent.com/22414/american-child-kidnapped-to-korea-rescued/

    Korea REFUSED to send the “kidnapped” American boy back to America, instead Korea gave the “Kidnapping Korean father” an F4 visa (and later Korean citizenship) a job in a Hagwon and helped him to keep his “kidnapped American son” here in Korea – even enrolling him in a Korean Public elementary school at Myeongil-dong.

    At that time, the American mother could not get her son back, even though the FBI and American embassy in Seoul knew everything about the father and “kidnapped American son” – because of Korea’s status as a non-party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

    Now this case – is just the opposite of that case.

    Why should America give the child back to Korea in 2012?
    when
    Korea refused to give the child back to America in 2008.

    The only reason the American mother got her child back, was because she employed my services to “re-kidnapped” her son in Korea and get him back to America.

    If the Korean mother wants her daughter back, all she has to do is employ my services – it’s as easy as that.

  • http://pawikoreapics.blogspot.com/ pawikirogii 石鵝

    i feel for the mother but seeing the very real discrimination towards amerasians in korea, the child should remain in the us.

  • gbnhj

    Why should America give the child back to Korea in 2012?
    when
    Korea refused to give the child back to America in 2008.

    Jakgani, you raise an interesting question (if only in that it seems entirely likely to raise jefferyhodges’ ire for its grammar and punctuation errors). In response, I’d say that American courts should render decisions based on American law, while Korean courts should do likewise with respect to Korean law. That the two systems have two different sets of law is no real surprise, and we should be surprised only when they do not adhere to their own. Get the Korean legislators to adopt the convention first, before you expect the Korean courts to operate in accordance with it.

    (By the way, this line of thinking also leads one to the conclusion that the Korean courts have demonstrated a misapplication of the law in their treatment of Lone Star regarding KEB.)

  • bumfromkorea

    Why should America give the child back to Korea in 2012?
    when
    Korea refused to give the child back to America in 2008.

    By the way, this line of thinking also leads one to the conclusion that the Korean courts have demonstrated a misapplication of the law in their treatment of Lone Star regarding KEB.

    So this Korean mother should lose her custody over her kid because… some unrelated Koreans screwed other unrelated Americans over. Got it.

    What’s it called when someone doesn’t see a person but the person’s skin color and ethnicity?

  • bumfromkorea

    Incredibly, pawi’s the one making a sensible statement in this thread. Should be an indicator of just how fucked the comments have become as of late.

  • gbnhj

    Uh, ‘this line of thinking’ was my response (conveniently labelled by the phrase ‘in response’), not his question. In case you can’t find it, it represents most of the post, and said that Korean courts should apply (and be held accountable for the application of) Korean law alone, but mentioned nothing about skin color or ethnicity. Does that clarify things for you, or do you still require assistance in order to grasp that my thoughts contrasted with his?

  • Arghaeri

    Is “source” a verb?

    Yes, but arguably not as used in that example. Where it should be can you provide a source.

    To source, is used in procurement in the sense of “find” “locate”, eg can you source a supply of fresh vegetables.

  • jkitchstk

    # 8,
    “So this Korean mother should lose her custody over her kid because…”

    Korean mothers almost always “lose custody” to fathers.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #11 Arghaeri: I knew that source in the context that I used it was not a verb. The usage, however, did not grate on my ears the way gifted does for gave a gift to. I have seen that used of gifted on legitimate sites and increasingly so.

    Still, source sounds good, and I think that some future edition of the OED will cite my well-thought and measured use of it as well as my stature and the prominence of this blog.

  • brier

    It’s difficult to offer an opinion without knowing the domestic situation. Would not wish this situation on any parent.

  • Arghaeri

    You knew the answer but you asked anyway, fine whatever. In anty cae you asked I answered, whats your problem?

    Anyways, the reason I said arguably not in that context is because its not the first time I’ve seen it used that way and I suspect as you do that it will be an entry in future with the evolving language. Indeed, it appears to be taking the same path of evolution as “to source” in the procurement sense. I suspect that started as the lazy way to say “find a source of fresh vegetables” =>
    “source some fresh vegetables”

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #15 Arghaeri: “You knew the answer but you asked anyway, fine whatever.

    I’m sorry to have put you out. If I really wondered I would have googled (another example of a noun evolving (devolving?) into a verb) it. I did learn from you the accepted use of source as a verb.

    In anty cae you asked I answered, whats your problem?

    My mother was cold and distant (“a handshake is as good as a hug”), and I’m emotionally starved for affection.

    …I think I just had a breakthrough. Thank you, thank you, thank you denizens of the Hole. I love you all.
    //******************************
    (Peace, Arghaeri. Let’s be buds.)

  • Arghaeri

    :-)

  • DLBarch

    Now that is one awesome piece of proper, long-form blogging! And on a genuinely important and overlooked topic, to boot!

    Bravo, Robert, bravo. Just fantastic.

    DLB

  • Sonagi

    What DL Barch said.

  • mcpike

    Although neither S. Korea, nor Japan, have signed the Hague Treaty on child abduction – they *have* ratified the UNCRC [UN Convention on the Rights of the Child]. S. Korea in 1990; Japan in 1994: http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en

    This UN Human Rights Treaty *already* addresses issues of parental abduction and the right of visitation. However, both S. Korea and Japan *ignore* this treaty.

    The Hague is merely an agreed upon mechanism for determining jurisdiction in cases of custody dipute (and not a very effective one).

  • http://www.letterstomysons.com mcpike

    In another case, the Washington State Appellate Court recently refused to recognize Japanese divorce orders, stating that, “Japan did not meet our fundamental principles concerning due process and parental rights.”

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/15499/from-the-shadows-documentary-reflects-sad-reality-of-government-sponsored-child-abduction-in-japan

    US courts are waking up to the disfunction and violation of rights in Asian family court proceedings. And I expect it to only get worse.

  • Benjamin Wagner

    Important issue, excellent write-up. Nice work.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Robert, I’ll be fourth on this match. Good work.

    I know that I asked this earlier (and not much earlier, but I don’t want it to get buried in the thread), but can you provide your source for the following:

    “In September, the US court outright refused to execute the Korean court’s decision, arguing that Korea was a non-party to the Hague Abduction Convention and Korean courts were so biased against Americans that it approached the level of a human rights violation.”

  • Benjamin Wagner

    @21 His “source” is the article he has translated. But it would be interesting to see whether there really is a federal district court opinion calling Korean courts anti-American, or whether the reporter is stretching the truth a little. I suspect the latter is the case.

  • http://vmphotography.com.au hoju_saram

    I know someone who lost their daughter to a Japanese partner who simply didn’t come home one day. To call it tragic would be the understatement of the year.

    I could be wrong, but my guess is that Japanese and Korean women are much more likely to live overseas with their foreign partners than in Korea/Japan, particularly in multi-culti western societies. My guess is that abductions are therefore more common inbound to Asia (i.e., mum running home). Which leads me to the conclusion that signing up to the Hague convention would be a net loss for the Asian side of the broken family. God forbid I’d suggest that Japan & Korea would look at this issue through a nationalistic prism, but I would suggest that in the case of child-stealing, they need to do a bit more to protect bereaved foreign parents. Japan cites abusive foreign spouses as a reason for it’s position – but why not let those foreign countries decide if the mum has been abused? Western courts, at least, are very solid institutions. How can the authorities in Japan be sure, aside from simply taking mum’s word for it? The message to overseas Japanese mums is a simple one: get homesick, fall out of love, or both, and the simple answer is a one-way ticket back to Japan with the little one, and no consequences (except for dad and child).

  • JK

    Good article…and very tragic situation.

  • SomeguyinKorea

    #23,

    Most countries look at this issue through a nationalistic prism, but it’s the nature of the nationalism (ethnic and xenophobic) from which it is being view in Japan and South Korea which prevents the issue from being addressed in a pragmatic manner in those two countries.

  • SomeguyinKorea

    Correction…being viewed…

  • Anonymous_Joe

    @23, I ran the link in the article through a translator, and what came out certainly did not preclude the possibility of Robert’s translation.

    I did not think to check the an article written in Korean because it was not the source and I thought that a Korean language article would never cite an opinion that was not complimentary to the fair minded Korean people or their judiciary system.

  • jkitchstk

    #23,
    For sure! Nationalism comes before international adoption, child laundering and child trafficking. However, S. Korea could sign onto the Hague Convention and just follow whatever parts of it they choose and ignore the parts they don’t like, you know like it does with other conventions it signs.

    I was thinking Susan Jacobs probably didn’t accomplish much this past week then I saw this according to one diplomat “The upcoming trip to Korea by Amb. Jacobs is unlikely to lead to Korea’s decision” on acceding to the convention, an informed diplomatic source said.”
    http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/10/117_122893.html

    Her trip west won’t be all for naught since Vietnam and Cambodia are ahead of S. Korea “The Special Advisor will also visit Cambodia and Vietnam, which are in the process of implementing the Hague Adoption Convention.”
    http://m.state.gov/md199438.htm

  • Stereo

    >In September, the US court outright refused to execute the Korean court’s decision, arguing that Korea was a non-party to the Hague Abduction Convention and Korean courts were so biased against Americans that it approached the level of a human rights violation.

    This is called hostage diplomacy. If the child was illegally abducted to the US, the US should return the child no matter what. “If you want your child back, do this.” is what terrorists say. No country can force another to sign a treaty using a child as a hostage.

    The main shortcoming of the Hague child abduction treaty is that it prohibits court to consider best interests of the child in making the judgment to return the child. It demands automatic return of the child except in extreme situations. This lead to many preposterous cases damaging children for the sake of divorcing parents. That is why the treaty is joined by less than half of the 195 world nations. I would not recommend joining the treaty for the sake of the children.

  • jkitchstk

    # 29,
    “for the sake of the children”
    What if the children can’t speak or aren’t old enough to know better and both parents are lunatics?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTFVMMCwsss

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #29 Stereo:

    the US court outright refused to execute the Korean court’s decision, arguing that Korea was a non-party to the Hague Abduction Convention and Korean courts were so biased against Americans that it approached the level of a human rights violation.

    This is called hostage diplomacy. If the child was illegally abducted to the US, the US should return the child no matter what. “If you want your child back, do this.” is what terrorists say. No country can force another to sign a treaty using a child as a hostage.

    No this is not hostage diplomacy; this is recognizing that Korean courts are biased against waegukin in general and Americans in particular.

    (As a side note, which is important to this particular case, but not to my point, the child was not illegally abducted to the U.S. From what I understand, a custodial parent took his child to the U.S. )

    “The main shortcoming of the Hague child abduction treaty is that it prohibits court to consider best interests of the child in making the judgment to return the child. It demands automatic return of the child except in extreme situations. This lead to many preposterous cases damaging children for the sake of divorcing parents. That is why the treaty is joined by less than half of the 195 world nations. I would not recommend joining the treaty for the sake of the children.”

    You make an excellent point, well-taken.

    Now reread your first paragraph (“If the child was illegally abducted to the US, the US should return the child no matter what.”) and your second (“The main shortcoming of the Hague child abduction treaty is that it prohibits court to consider best interests of the child in making the judgment to return the child. …I would not recommend joining the treaty for the sake of the children.)

    So, let me get this straight: The U.S. should obey the orders of Korean courts “no matter what”, but Korea should not be held to international convention.

    Hast thou Korean blood flowing through thy brain?

  • jkitchstk

    “for the sake of the children” just let them be laundered and trafficked?

  • jkitchstk

    31,
    Comment # 29 is most likely an example of what Susan Jacobs heard while in Seoul. She had to be thrilled to leave and go to Cambodia and Vietnam. South Korea ought to start an Anti-Hague convention(like the teabaggers/republicans anti-tax provision) for those 104 nations in the majority that haven’t signed the Hague.

  • http://pawikoreapics.blogspot.com/ pawikirogii 石鵝

    ‘Hast thou Korean blood flowing through thy brain?’

    see, this is the kind of creep i’m always talking about. so frikin freaky
    about korean tang that he would write about frikin k tang in an dang open forum while spouting off racist garbage. this was learned in his formative years in one of america’s finest trailer parks. of that, i am sure.

    this should only be about the kid and what’s best for this child. a us court should look into that without regard to treaties signed. as i said earlier, i feel for the mother but why in the world would she want her amerasian child to grow up in a country hostile to amersians when that child could grow up in a country where she will be accepted and given a chance to thrive? it seems obvious what’s best here. i see that through that lense of fairness and not through the yankee doodle lense that the above quoted AS&HOH see through.

    that’s what pawi sayin

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #34 pawikirogii 石鵝: “see, this is the kind of creep i’m always talking about. so frikin freaky about korean tang that he would write about frikin k tang in an dang open forum while spouting off racist garbage. this was learned in his formative years in one of america’s finest trailer parks. of that, i am sure.”

    No, I learned this as a fully functioning, university educated adult with full powers of observation and the ability to draw correlations from those observations.

    “this should only be about the kid and what’s best for this child. a us court should look into that without regard to treaties signed….”

    Do you think that Americans or American judges disagree with that statement? Now ask yourself whether Korea is more interested in the best interests of the child or in brand Korea?

    I do believe that the Oklahoma court will act in best interests of the child. The mother should go to Oklahoma and petition that court. But as you have noted, the best interests of the child have likely been served.

    PS: Next time get through your apoplectic fit before you post so that you can say it and don’t spray it. Now go take a chill pill and wipe off the keyboard before you respond.

  • Arghaeri

    :ROLL:

  • Arghaeri

    :+ROLL+:

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Arghaeri, It’s colonrollcolon :roll:

  • Arghaeri

    hello. :roll:

  • Arghaeri

    ooh it works, next step html for 3year old…

  • Arghaeri

    any other good ones….?

  • madar

    I have a good friend. She married a Korean here and they eventually moved to Canada to live. While there, he started seeing other women and they ended up filing for divorce and joint custody. One night, he breaks into her residence, steals the child, and flies back to Korea; where he dumps the kid in Cheju with his Grandparents and goes to work in Seoul. The child couldn’t speak with his grandparents, (no Korean), and was very traumatized. My friend gets a Canadian ruling against her ex-husband for sole custody and charges laid against him for kidnapping, which the Korean government refuses act upon. She finally faked a reconciliation and moves back in with her ex in Seoul. After a few month she convinces him to grant her access to the child, whereupon, she contacted her embassy and had them produce an emergency passport, and fled to Canada. Now he is facing prosecution and no custody in Canada, and she is facing the same in Korea. She moves around from time to time in fear that he will find her and re-kidnap his son. The child is completely traumatized and will have issues for life. I suspect this kind of story is more common that one suspects, especially without a real enforceable international legal framework to share custody.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    wow …just wow.

  • Sonagi

    The Hague Convention on Child Abductions is a real, enforceable legal framework for countries that have signed the treaty of cooperation.

  • bumfromkorea

    @ gbnhj

    My bad. Must have read your comment the wrong way.

    @Anonymous_Joe

    Hast thou Korean blood flowing through thy brain?

    Wait, you think Stereo is a Korean? The person who said “The blog owner seems to have difficulties in distinguishing a rape from prostitution. Prostitution is consensual, whereas a rape is not. “ about comfort women? Huh. I guess that says a lot about you as well, doesn’t it?

    See, this is the problem. The discussion, though it *was* about the specific case of the Korean mother trying to get her kid back (and whether her claim has merit or not), is now about how Koreans fucked over Americans before, and how the American courts can fuck over Koreans right back. Fuck the individuals in this case, it’s about the national scoreboard. It’s disturbing just how similar the course of discussion on this thread has become to the comment sections on a Korean newspaper.

    as i said earlier, i feel for the mother but why in the world would she want her amerasian child to grow up in a country hostile to amersians when that child could grow up in a country where she will be accepted and given a chance to thrive? it seems obvious what’s best here.

    Again, Pawi is the one that’s saying something sensible. That’s how fucked this blog’s comment culture has become.

  • Sonagi

    And as for the husband turning in the green card, he had no business doing that, if, however, she has been living in Korea all this time without a re-entry permit that gives her temporary permission to live outside the US and keep her green card, then she is not in compliance with US immigration laws and may be deemed by USCIS to have abandoned her US residency.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    It’s a sad story, and one reported fairly, except that we do not really know why the husband took the child. Why, for example, would the man take the child to the US without getting permission from the wife? There has to be a better reason than his simply no longer wanting to live in Korea. If that were the case, then the couple could simply discuss other options and possibly to agree to move back to the United States for a while.

    Unless the woman was a really bad mother, or vice versa, I do think it is right for a spouse to abduct a child in this way. At the same time, I don’t think the man could get a fair ruling from a Korean court.

    Instead of asking the Oklahoma court to enforce the Korean court ruling, I think both the father and mother should be allowed to present their cases in front of the court in Oklahoma since the child is now in the United States. I think it was a dirty trick for the husband to surrender his wife’s Green Card.

    Until I know more, I have more sympathy for the Korean woman than the man who abducted the child, just as I would have more sympathy for a Westerner if his or her child were abducted to Korea. Unless there are very special circumstances, abducting a child just doesn’t seem right.

    And I think abducting a child for money, regardless of the circumstances, is a crappy job, Jakgani (#5). Why don’t you teach English, instead.

  • inkevitch

    Actually Bum from Korea I disagree with Pawi even though he is being reasonable. Eurasian kids in Korea are treated are superstars. When my son was going to kindegarten there he was always the centre of attention. In australia he is just a nother kid from a not completely caucasian background. In Korea he is special.

    Actually in Australia he is also special, but that is mainly because he is so good looking and talented.

    What is really fucked up is that I am in agreeance with gbevers.

  • bumfromkorea

    What is really fucked up is that I am in agreeance with gbevers.

    Yeah… me too…

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    Unless there are very special circumstances, abducting a child just doesn’t seem right.

    Very special circumstances like the need for the Imperial Japan’s military to satisfy its sexual desires, right?

  • MrMao

    Jakgani

    Are you a) confessing to kidnapping someone and b) offering to do it again?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #45 bumfromkorea: “Wait, you think Stereo is a Korean? The person who said ‘The blog owner seems to have difficulties in distinguishing a rape from prostitution. Prostitution is consensual, whereas a rape is not. ‘ about comfort women? Huh. I guess that says a lot about you as well, doesn’t it?”

    The statement says nothing about me. I have no idea what you are talking about.

    “See, this is the problem. The discussion, though it ‘was’ about the specific case of the Korean mother trying to get her kid back (and whether her claim has merit or not), is now about how Koreans fucked over Americans before, and how the American courts can fuck over Koreans right back. Fuck the individuals in this case, it’s about the national scoreboard. It’s disturbing just how similar the course of discussion on this thread has become to the comment sections on a Korean newspaper.”

    No, it’s not what the discussion is about, and that’s a poor attempt to reframe the discussion as such. The discussion is about an American courts ruling that it does not have to carry out Korean courts orders because (1) Korea is not part of the Hague Convention and (2) the American courts opinion that Korean courts are so biased against Americans as to represent human rights violations. If you have poor reading comprehension skills, you can read the entries twice, thrice, or whatever the funny Shakespearean words are for four times and more.

    as i said earlier, i feel for the mother but why in the world would she want her amerasian child to grow up in a country hostile to amersians when that child could grow up in a country where she will be accepted and given a chance to thrive? it seems obvious what’s best here.

    Again, Pawi is the one that’s saying something sensible. That’s how fucked this blog’s comment culture has become.

    Everyone here is saying the courts should act in the best interests of the child. Just because Pawi is saying it too doesn’t upend the world. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut very once in a while.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    …and bumfromkorea, if you are looking for a reasonable post, read #47 gbevers’. You might have to read it twice, thrice, or you can guess where I’m going with this.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    …and if you want to find someone hijacking a thread, read #50 thekorean:

    “Very special circumstances like the need for the Imperial Japan’s military to satisfy its sexual desires, right?”

    Where did that non sequiter come from? Oh yeah, thekorean.

  • http://pawikoreapics.blogspot.com/ pawikirogii 石鵝

    ‘Eurasian kids in Korea are treated are superstars.’

    this comment is simply incredible. they ain’t superstars, sir. your kids live totally immersed in korean, sir? by that, i mean, your child attends korean schools, sir? you are one of the few westerners around the child, sir? don’t fool yourself, sir. amerasians are treated poorly in korean society even if koreans think they’re pretty.

    lastly, i always hear the word ‘superstar’ when whites start talking about how they’re treated in korea yet they cry night and day about korean racism. ‘superstar’ don’t mean much in korea when you ain’t korean. don’t fool yourself, ink.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Now Pawi and I are sharing a malted at the hop.

    What is this world coming too?

  • http://pawikoreapics.blogspot.com/ pawikirogii 石鵝

    lastly, your comment suggesting that whites don’t see anything special about the amerasian is not my experience. white are intrigued by their features just as much as koreans are. your child will never lack for a date in australia. trust me.

  • inkevitch

    What I am saying is that Australia/US/Europe are heterogenous in ethnic make up, korea is homogenous. There are so many different kinds of different that a child would need more to stand out. In Korea racial identity is enough.

    Let me put it this way if my son were to become a singer I would reccommend he go to Korea as he would be able to cash in on his mixed ethnic heritage, not so in australia.

    You question my remark about “superstar” but in Australia we walk around shops and he gets the occaisonal “he’s cute, where his mother from” etc. In Korea he was a magazine model at 9 months, we take him into a department store and the sales attandants stop doing there jobs pick him up and show him around to all of there friends at the store. We go to aquariums/zoos and people ask to have their picture taken with him while ignoring the animals behind them. I can tell you that does not happen in Australia.

    I am guessing your upbringing was a bit rough in Korea, but things have changed since you were a eurasian in the Korean system. That said I can see your point as it relates to primary/middle/secondary school as these places can be cruel to the different. When I get long service leave I intend on doing a sabatical year in Korea and have my kids go to school there.

  • inkevitch

    ” they ain’t superstars, sir. your kids live totally immersed in korean, sir? by that, i mean, your child attends korean schools, sir? you are one of the few westerners around the child, sir? ”

    Yes, but it was only for three months and it was only kindegarten. But as he could speak Korean above the level of the kids he was around it was as though he had been in Korea up until that point. Even now in Australia he spends far more time around Koreans, (my family all living far away) as most of my wife’s friends are Korean. Apart from seeing me at night his main contact with westeners is at kindegarten where most of the kids are korean, chinese, indian, african and the child care workers are similarly divers (his teachers are the only white teachers at the kindegarten)

  • http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/ jefferyhodges

    “I am guessing your upbringing was a bit rough in Korea, but things have changed since you were a eurasian in the Korean system.”

    Eh? Pawi’s Eurasian?

    Jeffery Hodges

    * * *

  • Stereo

    The Wikipedia article on this issue is unreliable due to aggressive editing by fathers right activists.
    >The main impediment to Japan’s signing the convention is that it would require an overhaul of the Japanese legal system.

    No.

    >Japanese family law considers issues of divorce custody, child support or alimony as predominantly private matters.

    It is private matter in any country.

    >Consequently, Japan has no enforcement mechanism to enforce foreign custody rulings or recommendations made by its own domestic courts.

    Japan has enforcement mechanism to enforce its court ruling or judgment. What is court “recommendation”? No country automatically enforce foreign court ruling because that contradicts local law and sovereignty. There is no provision in the Hague convention that allows automatic enforcement of foreign court ruling. It only says that foreign ruling may be taken into consideration when making return judgment.

    >Furthermore, Japan does not recognise joint parental authority or shared “residence” after divorce.

    The Hague convention does not require joint custody.

    >As a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, however, Japan is supposed to recognize the right of a child to obtain non-custodial parent visitation. However, the Supreme Court of Japan has recently ruled[when?] that this does not amount to the right of non-custodial parents to see their children (it has ruled that state-enforced visitation is the right of neither parent nor children).

    There is a big difference between right of a child to see his parents and that of a parent to see his child. If a child refuses to see his father, which was the Supreme Court case, why should court enforce the child to see his father?

    >This ruling, in effect, makes visitation without the cooperation of the custody-holding parent a practical impossibility.

    The Hague convention has no provision to enforce visitation. It only assists visitation though amicable means.

  • dogbertt

    I call bullshit on the “turning in wife’s green card” claim.

  • Arghaeri

    Eh? Pawi’s Eurasian?

    YOTD has stated in exchanges that Pawi is of russian heritage, and Pawi doesn’t seem to be denying it. Although being of russian heritage doesn’t automatically mean eursasian.

  • http://www.letterstomysons.com mcpike

    > The Wikipedia article on this issue is unreliable due to aggressive editing by fathers right activists.

    Then here are a series of legal papers on the issue:

    http://www.cardozolawandgender.com/uploads/2/7/7/6/2776881/lee_formatted_final_upload.pdf

    http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/1029/20PacRimLPolyJ589.pdf?sequence=1

    https://digital.lib.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/1028/20PacRimLPolyJ563.pdf?sequence=4

    http://blog.hawaii.edu/aplpj/files/2011/11/APLPJ_08.2_jones.pdf

    http://law.wlu.edu/deptimages/Law%20Review/67-4Sattler.pdf

    etc, etc, etc.

    > Japan has enforcement mechanism to enforce its court ruling or judgment.

    Not for issues of family law – per legal experts (and the Japanese Government). Reference links above.

    >What is court “recommendation”? No country automatically enforce foreign court ruling because that contradicts local law and sovereignty.

    True, but there is the concept of legal comity. Japan wishes it’s orders to be honored, but does not honor orders from foreign courts – and actively steals jurisdiction. However, the foreign courts are finally figuring this out and Japan is paying beginning to pay the price.

    See http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=413884MAJ

    > There is no provision in the Hague convention that allows automatic enforcement of foreign court ruling. It only says that foreign ruling may be taken into consideration when making return judgment.

    That isn’t actually what the hague is about at all. The hague has nothing to do with custody. It has to do with jurisdiction.

    > There is a big difference between right of a child to see his parents and that of a parent to see his child. If a child refuses to see his father, which was the Supreme Court case, why should court enforce the child to see his father?

    This shows ignorance of the psychology behind parental child abduction. Abduction is generally about control. The abducted child is commonly alienated from the non-abducting parent.

  • Stereo

    >> Japan has enforcement mechanism to enforce its court ruling or judgment.
    >Not for issues of family law – per legal experts (and the Japanese Government). Reference links above.

    Then, why there are so many actual cases in which court enforcement is carried out in family law cases?
    Read “杉山初江; 園尾隆司(監修) (2010). 民事執行における「子の引渡し」. 民事法研究会. ISBN 978-4-89628-595-6″ for actual cases.
    Some people from common law countries falsely believe that lack of court contempt is lack of court enforcement. Court contempt is a system peculiar to common law countries. Civil law countries enforce court ruling without court contempt just as well.

    >True, but there is the concept of legal comity.

    Yes. But what does that have to do with the Hague convention? By the way, Japan also allows comity if a foreign court judgment fulfills conditions set out in article 118 of code of civil procedure and article 24 of code of civil execution.

    >That isn’t actually what the Hague is about at all. The Hague has nothing to do with custody. It has to do with jurisdiction.

    Which article of the Hague Convention says so? It does not say anything about jurisdiction. It only says that an illegally abducted child must be returned as temporal measure. However, if the court claims the jurisdiction of child custody even after returning the child to the habitual resident country, there is no provision in the convention to prevent that jurisdiction. We all agree lack of physical existence of the child in court jurisdiction is no impediment to the court jurisdiction to custody trial, as we see so many US child custody rulings even when the child is not in its jurisdiction.

    Don’t you think it ridiculous that so many misinformation is floating around in the name of self-claimed experts?

  • http://www.letterstomysons.com mcpike

    >Don’t you think it ridiculous that so many misinformation is floating around in the name of self-claimed experts?

    No, I think it is ridiculous that you are spreading mis-information.

    >Which article of the Hague Convention says so? It does not say anything about jurisdiction. It only says that an illegally abducted child must be returned as temporal measure.

    Do you understand what you just wrote? The child is to returned to the “habitual residence” – this is were jurisdiction will then be determined. The Hague itself has nothing to do with custody and how custody determination is made.

    >By the way, Japan also allows comity if a foreign court judgment fulfills conditions set out in article 118 of code of civil procedure and article 24 of code of civil execution.

    Not true in cases related to family law. Japan disregards foreign custody orders as a matter of practice. I can’t find it right now, but was was an article about how the courts tried to transfer custody in about 100 cases last year. They failed to do so in over half. The failure was due to lack of enforcement ability. Transfer relies on cooperation. This is why family courts in Japan rule for “status quo”, because they have limited ability to actually enforce any ruling that would change it.

    PS: I have had Japanese attorneys tell me flat out that the Japanese courts will likely not honor a US tort judgment, even if I follow every single rule, because it will be considered related to a Japanese family dispute.

    The Japanese legal system is nothing more than lipstick on a pig.

  • Stereo

    >The child is to returned to the “habitual residence” – this is were jurisdiction will then be determined.

    Now, you are saying the jurisdiction is determined not by the convention but by the court of habitual residence, contradicting what you said one comment earlier. Then what happens if the court in habitual residence decides it has no jurisdiction?

    In international law, there are chances that 2 courts in 2 different countries may claim jurisdiction. 2 proceedings may go on simultaneously and end in 2 contradicting rulings. Are there any provisions in the Hague Convention to prevent such occurrence? No. Your comment “It has to do with jurisdiction.” is wrong.

    >Not true in cases related to family law. Japan disregards foreign custody orders as a matter of practice. I can’t find it right now, but was was an article about how the courts tried to transfer custody in about 100 cases last year. They failed to do so in over half. The failure was due to lack of enforcement ability. Transfer relies on cooperation.

    Are you OK? It looks like you cannot figure out differences among amity, enforceability, and fulfillment of enforcement. A fact that a civil enforcement resulted in a failure does not mean the order did not have enforceability or that amity was disallowed.

    >I have had Japanese attorneys tell me flat out that the Japanese courts will likely not honor a US tort judgment, even if I follow every single rule, because it will be considered related to a Japanese family dispute.

    I would hire a better lawyer.

  • http://www.letterstomysons.com mcpike

    Stereo,

    You are simply tossing around red herrings and strawman arguments.

    There is a difference between theory and practice. I’m explaining how things actually work on the ground in the Japanese court system. What is that based on? Over a year and a half of dealing with it personally and working with dozens of other parents (mothers, fathers, Japanese, non-Japanese, abductions within Japan, abductions outside of Japan, etc), lobbying politicians in multiple countries, dealing with MOFA and the Department of State, discussing with Japanese law professors, etc.

    One can live in la-la-land, or one can deal with the real world.

    Here is a former family court judge whose child was abducted by his wife. He understood first hand that there was little he could do within the court structure. http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201206080014

    Here is a politician whose wife abducted his child. He actually even got changes made to domestic law in Japan. Result: Judge, with the blessing of the court bureaucracy, ignored the new law.
    http://www.economist.com/node/21543193

    Here is the US Congress calling Japan out on the biased and insane family court system: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-hr1326/show

    Here is the US Senate about to do the same:
    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112sres543is/pdf/BILLS-112sres543is.pdf

    Again, Japan is *already* ignoring the UNCRC. They are *already* openly ignoring international treaties related to this and other human rights issues.

  • Pingback: Korean Gender Reader | The Grand Narrative

  • Stereo

    Poor mcpike. My advice is to leave losers group. They make a group because they lost custody, and they are losers. All you can know from them is how to lose custody. They cannot tell you how to win. They will tell you that you cannot win in Japan, which is their death wish.

    Leave them. There are people who won custody. Associate with them, and you will have much better chance.

  • http://www.letterstomysons.com mcpike

    Stereo,

    Show me a foreign parent, who didn’t already have the child in their possession, who one custody?

    It *rarely* even happens with Japanese parents. Abduction is common, condoned by courts and recommended by attorneys in Japan.

    As PM Masae IDO put it, “it is really a custom.”

    Again, you seem ignorant of the realities.

  • Pingback: Red Lights, Big City | twinkiesandeggs

  • Pingback: Red Lights, Big City | twinkiesandeggs

  • dcayman

    can we get a citation on this case? cannot find anything about this in U.S. or Oklahoma press

Next post:

Previous post: