Chiba Family Court Matsudo Branch
2012 (Home Ho) No. 19
March 29, 2016
Attorney at Law for Plaintiff: Takayo Kamata
Attorney at Law for Defendant Yoichi Kitamura
- The plaintiff and the defendant are divorced.
- the defendant shall have custody of the plaintiff’s eldest daughter, A (born on xxxx, xxxx, in xxxx year).
- The plaintiff shall deliver the eldest daughter to the defendant.
- The defendant shall allow the plaintiff to have visitation with the eldest daughter as described in the attached “Guidelines for Visitation”.
- the proportional share to be claimed for the division of the pension between the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to the information stated in the attached “Notice of Information for Division of Pension” shall be determined to be 0.5
- The remaining claims of the plaintiff shall be dismissed.
- The court costs shall be borne by each party.
Facts and Reasons
1. Plaintiff (main claim)
- Paragraphs 1 and 5 of the main text are identical.
- The plaintiff shall be appointed as the custodian of the eldest daughter A (born on xxxx, xxxx, in xxxx year) between the plaintiff and the defendant.
- The defendant shall pay the plaintiff 100,000 yen per month as child support for the eldest daughter until the month in which the eldest daughter reaches the age of majority.
- The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 500,000 yen and a sum equal to the rate of five percent (5%) per annum from April 1, 2012 to the date of payment.
(ii) Defendant (preliminary supplementary claim)
In the event that the main claim is admitted and the defendant becomes the custodian of the eldest daughter
- the same as in Paragraph 3 of the main text
- In the event that the main claim is approved and the defendant is granted custody of the eldest daughter.
Outline of the case
- The plaintiff and the defendant are a married couple who were married on x. x. x. year, and have an eldest daughter, A (born on x. x. x. year). 2.
- The plaintiff demanded that the defendant divorce the plaintiff and pay 500,000 yen in alimony to the plaintiff on the grounds that the defendant’s physical, economic, psychological and sexual violence against the plaintiff caused the breakdown of the marriage relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.
- The plaintiff also demanded that the defendant take custody of the eldest daughter on the grounds that the eldest daughter had no health or growth problems and was leading a stable life with the plaintiff, that the plaintiff’s parents were cooperating in the upbringing of the eldest daughter and that the upbringing environment was in order, that the plaintiff was the primary custodian of the eldest daughter, and that the plaintiff had been designated as the custodian in the trial for the designation of the custodian prior to this case. The defendant argued that the plaintiff should be designated as the custodian because the plaintiff was the primary custodian of the eldest daughter, and the plaintiff was designated as the custodian in the trial for designation of custodian prior to this case. 4.
- The defendant denied all the causes of divorce claimed by the plaintiff and stated that she did not want a divorce because she considered the interests of her eldest daughter first and foremost, and therefore requested that the claim be dismissed. 5.
- In addition, as a preliminary measure, the defendant claimed that the custodian of the eldest daughter should be determined as the defendant, and in that case, as an incidental measure, in addition to the delivery of the eldest daughter, the defendant demanded that the timing and method of visitation between the plaintiff and the eldest daughter be determined in accordance with the attached draft of the joint custody plan.
According to the “evidence in brief,” the results of the plaintiff’s own examination, and the whole purpose of the argument, the following facts are admitted:
- At the time of the marriage, the defendant was a national public servant working for ________ and the plaintiff was an employee of the United Nations working for ________. In December 2006, after the marriage, the plaintiff took a leave of absence from the United Nations and returned to Japan in order to live with the defendant in Tokyo.
- In October 2008, the plaintiff enrolled in the graduate school (doctoral course) of XX University and began to attend XX campus in XX Prefecture.
- In April 2009, the defendant was transferred to XX, and the plaintiff followed the defendant and moved to XX with her eldest daughter. The plaintiff, who was forced to commute a long distance to school as a result, was dissatisfied with the defendant’s decision to work in a local area without considering the plaintiff’s convenience.
- Since the expiration of the leave period was approaching, the plaintiff began to work for the United Nations from the spring of 2009, and applied for many vacant posts, but was unable to obtain a place to return to work. On the other hand, the defendant was appointed as XX of XX in July 2009.
- The plaintiff and the defendant were both highly motivated for self-fulfillment and both felt that the other did not fully understand the importance of their work and research. In addition, the plaintiff and the defendant often had heated arguments due to their differences in values, ethics, and economic views. As a result, the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant had become acrimonious by 2009.
- From March 2010, the defendant changed her work-oriented lifestyle, greatly increased her share of housework and childcare, and began keeping a diary from the first of the same month. In addition, the defendant took the necessary procedures on her own, and from April 1, 2010 onward, she stopped attending XX, which she had been attending, and started sending her eldest daughter to XX Daycare Center.
At that time, there were several occasions when the plaintiff went back to her parents' house in XX for a few days without taking her eldest daughter to attend graduate school, and the defendant took care of her eldest daughter alone during those days by using a babysitter.
- on April 30, 2000, the plaintiff was diagnosed with stress enteritis.
- on May 1, 2010, the plaintiff and the defendant started fighting in the morning, and the defendant tried to record the fight with a tape recorder. As a result, the plaintiff and the defendant fought over the tape, which led to a commotion in which the police were called, and the plaintiff and the defendant were interviewed separately by the police.
On the night of the same day, the defendant prepared a draft of a notarized contract of divorce benefits, showed it to the plaintiff, and proposed divorce. The plaintiff replied that she would reply at a later date.
The document stated that the plaintiff would divorce the defendant as the custodian of the eldest daughter, that the defendant would pay child support, that the defendant would allow the plaintiff to have visitation with the eldest daughter, and that the plaintiff would pay the defendant alimony in the amount of ____.
- on May 2, 2010, the defendant went to XXX with the eldest daughter to play. On the 4th of the same month, the defendant and the eldest daughter went to XX, and the plaintiff followed them. On the 5th of the same month, the defendant and the eldest daughter went to the defendant’s aunt’s house in XX to play.
- On May 6, 2010, the defendant went to work and picked up her eldest daughter at the day-care center at 5:30 p.m., but she was not there, and when she came home, the plaintiff had left her house with her eldest daughter.
When the defendant checked her e-mail, she found the plaintiff’s e-mail saying that she was going back to her parents' house because she was not feeling well. The defendant hurriedly called the plaintiff’s cell phone, but could not get through. So the defendant called the plaintiff’s parents' house, and the plaintiff’s mother answered, stating that neither the plaintiff nor the eldest daughter would be returned.
- On May 7, 2010, the defendant took a leave of absence to consult with a lawyer, went directly back to her parents' house in XX, and on the following day, May 8, met with the plaintiff’s father and asked him to leave her at the defendant’s parents' house.
- On the 8th, he met with the plaintiff’s father and asked him to leave the eldest daughter at the defendant’s parents' house. 12. Since May 6, 2010, the plaintiff has been living with the eldest daughter at the parents' house in XX, but in response to the defendant’s request, the defendant allowed the plaintiff to visit the eldest daughter in XX on May 15, 2010, May 22, 2010, May 29, 2010, and June 6, 2010.
During this period, on May 29 and June 6 of the same year, the defendant met and talked with the plaintiff’s father and strongly urged him to return the elder daughter.
- The subsequent visitation took place on July 4, 2010 at XX Zoo.
- On July 16, 2010, the plaintiff, with the defendant as the other party, filed a petition for a protection order against spousal violence with the Matsudo Branch of the Chiba District Court, but withdrew the petition on September 14, 2010.
- In early September 2010, the plaintiff saw a video of her eldest daughter, which the defendant had provided, on a NHK television program that featured the current situation of children who cannot see one parent after divorce. Although the image of the eldest daughter was blurred in the eye area, making it impossible for anyone other than close relatives to identify her as the eldest daughter, the plaintiff was strongly shocked that the defendant had exposed her to the media.
- On September 26, 2010, the defendant met with the elder daughter at a hotel in XX city. However, after that, the plaintiff refused to allow the defendant to meet with her and thereafter only allowed the defendant to talk to her on the phone once a week. However, after the defendant visited the plaintiff on March 21, 2011 and demanded to meet with her and caused a commotion in which the police were called, the defendant refused to talk to her on the phone.
- in the spring of 2011, the defendant resigned from her job at XX and returned to XX, and came to live with her parents at their home in XX City, XX Prefecture.
- In 2011, the case filed by the defendant to designate a custodian for the child and the case filed by the plaintiff to surrender the child, as well as the temporary restraining order prior to the trial, and the case filed by the plaintiff to designate a custodian for the child, were all pending before this Office.
On February 28, 2012, this Office designated the plaintiff as the custodian of the eldest daughter and issued a trial decision dismissing both of the defendant’s petitions, which subsequently became final and binding.
Thereafter, the defendant twice filed petitions with this office seeking to change the custodian of the child, but both petitions were dismissed.
- The plaintiff completed the doctoral course at the Graduate School of XX in September 2011, and after working as a visiting joint researcher at the Graduate School of XX and a special lecturer at the Graduate School of XX University, she began working at XX in May 1951, and has been working as XX since June 1952. The plaintiff’s working hours are from 9:00 to 5:00 Monday through Friday. In addition to this, the plaintiff sometimes teaches classes as a part-time lecturer at a university for a short period of time (such as every Saturday). The plaintiff’s salary income for the year 2007 was XXXX million ×××× yen.
The plaintiff is currently living with her eldest daughter in an apartment in XX, which is relatively close to her parents' house in XX, with the support of her parents. The plaintiff’s eldest daughter is a second grader at XX Elementary School near her residence. She has adjusted to school life, is attending school in good health, and has achieved physical and mental development appropriate to her age. There are no particular problems in the relationship between mother and child.
The plaintiff has no intention of getting back together with the defendant, and wishes to become the custodian of her eldest daughter after the divorce. She believes that the support of a third party organization such as FPIC is essential for visitation between the defendant and her eldest daughter, and that the frequency of visitation should be once a month for about two hours.
In addition, the plaintiff admitted that the parent-child relationship between the defendant and the eldest daughter was good at the time of the investigation by the family court investigator in the fall of 2011.
- The defendant has been working at XX since the spring of 2011, but is currently on secondment to XX, doing XX, and is scheduled to be in charge of XX from April 2008. The defendant’s ____ is scheduled once a week, and at other times the defendant may work from home at his or her discretion.
The defendant lives with her parents, who are engaged in farming, at her parents' home in XX city. Her parents are in good health. The defendant’s parents' house is a well-equipped house built on a large plot of land and is blessed with nature. Her uncle, XX, and her aunt and uncle-in-law, XX, live near her parents' house. The defendant’s parents plan to take care of the eldest daughter while the defendant is away on business during the day, and in the unlikely event that the defendant’s parents are not home, the uncle and his wife can take care of her.
Even if the defendant is appointed as the custodian of the eldest daughter, the defendant has offered the plaintiff to guarantee visitation for about 100 days a year, on the grounds that it is in the interest of the eldest daughter to maintain interaction between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant admits that if the defendant does not keep the promise without reasonable grounds, it will be a reason to change the custodian to the plaintiff.
According to the facts identified in the above paragraph 1, the plaintiff and the defendant, both of whom have a high level of pride, repeatedly clashed with each other and as a result, their marriage became acrimonious and they separated.
Therefore, the plaintiff’s request for divorce is justified, but her request for alimony is not.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s physical, economic, psychological, and sexual violence against the plaintiff is the cause of the breakdown of the marriage and the cause of the alimony, but there is no evidence sufficient to admit such facts.
3. Person with Parental Authority
According to the facts certified above, the plaintiff has taken custody of the eldest daughter for approximately five years and ten months since the removal of the eldest daughter without the consent of the defendant, and during that period, the plaintiff has had visitation with the defendant only about six times in total. On the other hand, the defendant has been trying to get her back since immediately after she was taken away from her, and has appealed to numerous legal means, but none of them have been successful. With regard to the interaction between the eldest daughter and the plaintiff, the defendant has proposed a plan for visitation of up to 100 days per year, emphasizing the continuation of a close parent-child relationship. (2) The plaintiff is currently in a relationship with the defendant.
The plaintiff claims that it would be contrary to the welfare of the eldest daughter to separate her from her current familiar environment, but the new environment in which the eldest daughter will be placed in the future is a well-prepared environment prepared by her own father who wishes for her healthy growth, and it does not mean that the eldest daughter will be placed in a worse environment than the current one. In addition, taking into consideration the fact that the visitation is scheduled for 100 days a year, the plaintiff’s fears should be groundless.
Therefore, the plaintiff should hand over her eldest daughter to the defendant immediately after this judgment becomes final.
4. Visitation and exchange
With regard to visitation between the plaintiff and the eldest daughter, the defendant has submitted a “Draft Plan for the Joint Custody of XX.
The outline of the plan is as follows
(1) Unless the plaintiff and her parents acknowledge that unsupervised visitation is in the best interest of the eldest daughter and submit a written statement to that effect to the defendant, visitation will be conducted under the supervision of an agency designated by the defendant.
After the supervised visitation is over, visitation shall be allowed every other Friday from 19:00 until 19:00 on Sunday. In addition to this, visitation will be allowed every other year on national holidays, spring holidays (April 29 to May 5), and the eldest daughter’s birthday. In addition, visitation is allowed every year on the plaintiff’s birthday and at the end of the year (December 23 to December 30), as well as two weeks in the summer and one week at other times of the year. 3.
(3) As a general rule, the place of visitation shall be limited to within _________, _________, and _________.
(4) The delivery of the eldest daughter at the beginning and at the end of the visit shall take place at the defendant’s residence (XX).
In order to prevent her removal from the country, the passport of the eldest daughter shall be kept in a safe deposit box at a bank.
(6) The defendant shall be allowed to communicate by telephone once a day for up to one hour.
(7) The defendant acknowledges that if the defendant does not respond to the above visitation without a valid reason, this will be grounds for a change of custody. The following is a summary of the case.
With regard to (1), supervised visitation, the defendant states that it made this provision in order to make the plaintiff understand that supervised visitation is inhumane and humiliating, but it is obvious that supervised visitation is not in the best interest of the child, and this provision is unnecessary.
With regard to (2) above, as long as both parties understand the significance of visitation, the frequency and timing of visitation are appropriate in light of recent research on visitation.
The provisions of (3) above regarding the place of visitation are reasonable in light of where both parties live.
With regard to (4) above regarding the place of delivery, in consideration of the plaintiff’s resistance, it cannot be said that there is no problem in setting the defendant’s parents' house as the place of delivery.
The defendant, who has custody of the eldest daughter, is expected to manage her passport.
Both (6) and (7) above are reasonable.
Therefore, based on the above, the procedure for visitation between the plaintiff and the eldest daughter shall be as described in the attached “Procedure for visitation.
5. Division of Pension
According to the facts certified above, it is reasonable to determine the proportional share to be claimed for the pension division pertaining to the information described in the attached “Notice of Information for Pension Division” between the plaintiff and the defendant to be 0.5.
Therefore, the judgment shall be rendered as set forth in the main text.
(Judge Yoshio Shoji)
Attachment: Guidelines for visitation
I. Periodic visitation
- visitation shall be held from 19:00 on the first Friday to 19:00 on the first Sunday after this judgment becomes final, and thereafter from 19:00 on every other Friday to 19:00 on every other Sunday.
- As a general rule, the place of visitation shall be limited to within XXX, XXX, XXX.
- The delivery of the eldest daughter at the beginning and at the end of the visit shall take place at the defendant’s residence (XX).
(ii) Irregular visitation
- in addition to the regular visitation, visitation shall be allowed every other year on national holidays, spring holidays (April 29 to May 5) and the birthday of the eldest daughter. In addition, visitation will be allowed every year on the plaintiff’s birthday and at the end of the year (December 23 to December 30), as well as two weeks in the summer and one week at other times of the year.
- In this case, the specific date, time, place, and method of visitation exchange shall be determined by mutual consultation between the parties in advance, taking into consideration the welfare of the eldest daughter.
(iii) Exchange by telephone
Exchange by telephone shall be permitted once a day for up to one hour.
(iv) Special provisions in the event of default by the defendant
Defendant acknowledges that if Defendant fails to comply with the above visitation without a valid reason, this shall be grounds for a change in custody.
Attachment: Notice of Information for Division of Pension.
Appendix: Proposed Joint Child Rearing Support Plan