Lisa Ogawa, co-founder Hague Mothers Japan has sent us this report about media accounts of ‘child abduction’ and the growing feminist solidarity which is challenging this one-sided narrative.
Some three months ago, in May 2024, Japan’s Diet (parliament) passed a bill introducing joint parental authority. While few oppose voluntary joint parental authority, many feared the possibility of court-mandated joint parental authority, leading to widespread opposition. As this legislation was debated, DV survivors and supporters began to raise their voices, primarily on social media but also through on-site protests. The movement grew, with a petition to stop the bill gathering more than 240,000 signatures.
‘The solidarity between DV survivors, supporters, and allies, which had formed in opposition to the bill, re-emerged in response to the programme announcement. Having come together to fight for our rights, women will not easily be silenced.’
Lisa’s report on how a TV documentary announcement sparked social media uproar in Japan:
On August 18, 2024, a post by Houdou Tokushu (“News Special”), a major live news and documentary program on TBS, one of Japan’s leading commercial television networks, drew widespread attention. The post read:
‘On August 24: MBS Child Abduction. Due to the breakdown of relationships between parents, cases of one parent abducting their child continue to occur. How do children, suddenly separated from one parent, feel and cope with their lives? This program will explore the reality of abduction, featuring the story of a child who reunited with their father after 10 years.’
The original post included a link to a short video teaser for the upcoming program.
In the teaser, several Japanese individuals shared their experiences of ‘child abduction’. The Executive Director of BACHOME (Bring Abducted Children Home) also appeared, visibly emotional, as he recounted how his wife ‘abducted’ their six-year-old son from the USA. (The separation occurred before Japan ratified the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction.)
However, after facing a torrent of negative comments, the original post was deleted and re-uploaded the following day without the video link. This action only intensified the backlash from domestic violence survivors, their supporters, and many others who saw the post as a case of misinformation perpetuated by a small but influential group.
Here are some of the reactions:
- ‘These are situations where DV victims could lose their lives. Please urgently convene a risk management meeting within the company to reconsider whether this report should proceed.’ Link
- ‘I’m disappointed that you didn’t interview victims and instead used the term ‘abduction,’ a cliché often used as hate speech against DV victims.’ Link
- ‘Where does the claim that ‘one parent taking the child away continues to occur’ come from? In many divorce cases, we see a parent taking the child to escape DV, while the perpetrator, lacking self-awareness, accuses them of abduction. (family lawyer)’ Link
- ‘I fled from an ex-husband who kicked me and abused our infant son to the point of breaking his bones. I ran away during the day while he was at work because I feared for our lives if we continued living together. There was no way I could discuss divorce while still living together.’ Link
- ‘In this debate, reports have repeated one-sided claims without fact-checking. Why aren’t programs asking the crucial question: “Why did they leave home with their child, risking their livelihood?” This is what needs investigation.’ (law student) Link
- ‘Only 28.1% of single-parent households in Japan receive child support, according to the 2021 National Survey. Shouldn’t this issue be highlighted? Why not interview those who continued paying support despite financial hardship and those who stopped?’ Link
Following the programme announcement, a DV survivor’s ‘X’ account called for a social media protest on August 18, using hashtags like #DontLabelItAbduction, #ChildRelocationNotAbduction, and #NoParentChildSeparation.
Despite being announced less than seven hours in advance, the protest quickly gained traction, with #ConcernedAboutNewsSpecial generating 4,944 posts.
To understand why a post by a TV programme sparked such widespread outrage in Japan, it’s crucial to consider the realities of single-parent households, family law, and DV policies, rather than the misinformation spread by international media, invariably influenced by fathers’ rights activists from the West.
Here are some facts:
- In Japan, taking their children and leaving home is often the only way for victims to escape DV.
- Labelling pre-divorce relocation with children ‘abduction’ is a narrative often pushed by abusers who want to criminalize a parent’s relocation, even if that parent is the primary caregiver.
- If a child is taken away by a non-primary caregiver during a marriage, they will be returned through legal proceedings.
- Nearly half of single-parent households in Japan live in relative poverty (source). Despite this, many parents choose to leave abusive situations, indicating they have no other choice.
- Shared custody, including 50/50 physical custody, is possible under current law if the ex-couple maintains a minimum level of trust. It’s important to note that there’s no reliable evidence that enforced shared physical custody benefits children, while studies like Wallerstein’s suggest the opposite.
- The programme announcement only highlighted the voices of parents who claimed their children were abducted, without verifying the other parent’s side of the story or checking if those unable to see their children had pursued legal visitation rights.
- The teaser cited a report by a Japanese NPO, whose data reliability is under scrutiny, claiming there are over 500 ‘victims’ of child abduction.
The documentary was aired on August 24th as originally scheduled. However, the company appear to have significantly altered the content. For instance, the report by the NPO in question was omitted from the program, and the reporter made a point of clarifying that escape from domestic violence is not ‘abduction’. We believe these changes were in response to our campaign. Nonetheless, significant concerns remain regarding the accuracy and objectivity of the programme, as mentioned above.
The strength and impact of the opposition to the initial post about the documentary didn’t appear out of thin air. It is a sign of growing solidarity and visibility among DV survivors in Japan.
Some three months ago, in May 2024, Japan’s Diet (parliament) passed a bill introducing joint parental authority (Note: This is not joint custody legislation; see this article for more details). While few oppose voluntary joint parental authority, many feared the possibility of court-mandated joint parental authority, leading to widespread opposition. As this legislation was debated, DV survivors and supporters began to raise their voices, primarily on social media but also through on-site protests. The movement grew, with a petition to stop the bill gathering more than 240,000 signatures.
Although the legislation passed with the ruling party’s support, the opposition became so strong that the government was compelled to commit that joint parental authority wouldn’t be court-ordered if one parent refuses for valid reasons.
The solidarity between DV survivors, supporters, and allies, which had formed in opposition to the bill, re-emerged in response to the programme announcement. Having come together to fight for our rights, women will not easily be silenced.
