Is this a boy who is afraid of his father?
One of many key elements of the machine:
The Misuse of Psychological Evaluations as an Aid to Child Abduction-by-Court in Japan
In Japan, child abduction to achieve physical and legal custody of a child is induced and condoned by Japanese family courts and Japanese law. In addition to condoning child abductions, the family courts allow testimony on the child’s emotional and psychological welfare to be submitted by *non-certified* persons, who bring titles such as “clinical psychologist” and “medical doctor”, without any parallel form of what we know as board certification. Despite the absence of a qualifying standard, it is felt that their testimony does not require testing or challenge which might inconvenience the family court. Such testimony can be elicited, and is frequently used, to make claims against one of the parents – wild allegations in divorce cases meant to secure the judges’ favor for the abductor.
In most countries, this testimony could and would be queried, and if found wanting, impugned – as hearsay or lacking psychological credibility and coherence. A relation to the truth would be desired and sought. But then, this would require that the court comprehend its role as that of protecting, rather than vivisecting, child-parent relationships.
My son Rui was given two of these presumed ‘investigative’ exams, four and a half months after he had been abducted to Japan and kept completely out of contact with his father. The psychological and medical reports, presented 8 months later to the court, *both* stated, identically, that he was afraid of his father, and claimed he suffered PTSD brought on by his father’s abuse. There was no forensic inquiry into these wild allegations (whose source was his mother and her ‘attorney’). His mothers’ word to the doctor and psychologist were considered sufficient for the doctors and the court’s purposes. An implausible but prearranged ‘diagnosis’ and conclusion were obtained.
I have queried my fellow parents, and have found identical formulaic, boilerplate accusations in Japanese ‘custody’ cases brought by mothers accused of abducting their children. This is what Japanese defenders of the right to abduct children refer to as “bringing the child home.” Apparently, “bringing your child home” involves cooking up elaborate fictional scenarios, and sticking vicious labels on a loving parent, without regard for the damage done to our children.
In this video, I combined two excerpts of Rui having talks in the park and spending time with me, his uncles, and grandfather (without his mother’s presence affecting his response to me) before his abduction. Two generations of fathers, in which club I am now declined membership. It is an enormous psychological burden to bear with inevitable, long-suffered consequences. I carry with me an unspeakable and nameless shadow. We all do.
Is this a boy who is afraid of his father? This was my happy young son who trusted and loved, and knew that he was loved and appreciated in turn.
It’s been nearly six years since he was kidnapped. The governments of the United States and Japan, in close partnership centered on the advantages of military power and enormous financial profits reserved for elites, play these games with children, and bring suffering to parents. They are more than complicit. They create the enabling conditions and protections of the international abduction of children.
All this should be discussed in greater detail at our conference in New York this week: