Saitama family court "kidnaps" jurisdiction after Japanese mother Ayako Wood kidnaps children.

Documented April 5, 2005

Click on the picture to see more about this case

My name is Alexander Murray Wood. I am a teacher. I live in Vancouver, British Columbia where I have raised my children for the past ten years. My ex-wife, Ayako Wood, has abducted our two children Alexander Takara Maniwa-Wood (born May 21, 1994) and Manami Sheona Maniwa-Wood (born January 6, 1997) to the home of her parents, Goro and Hiroko Maniwa, in Saitama, Japan.

I have always taken responsibility for the children’s care and the household duties, while trying to encourage a positive relationship between the children and their mother. Throughout our marriage Ayako took little or no responsibility for the children’s care or mental well-being. In the last few years she has deliberately worked to vilify me in the eyes of the children. Ayako’s consistent refusal to cooperate or to put the children’s needs ahead of her own were important reasons why, at trial, the Honorable Mr. Justice Hood granted me sole custody and guardianship of the children on February 18, 2004. He stated in his reasons for judgment that, “[Murray Wood] is a loving and caring father … and he has the means and skills to meet their needs in every way …. On the other hand, the defendant [Ayako Wood]’s … injurious misconduct in relation to the children must come to an end.”

My partner, Brett, who had been living with me and the children since June 2003, has always treated Takara and Manami like her own children. Working together, she and I were able to build an increasingly stable and secure life for the children. Despite their mother’s unpredictable behavior, the children became much more relaxed and happier people living with us.

The children were to see their mother as much as her work schedule as a flight attendant with Air Canada permitted. She was made responsible for clearly communicating her work schedule to me so that I could draft a monthly access schedule. There were still problems. Ayako forfeited access to the children for two out of nine months by not complying with the court order. She made it possible for the children to see her for only 9 overnights and 8 dinners from the time of the trial in February to November 27th, 2004. Prior to trial, she had made no effort whatsoever to contact the children since December 25, 2003.

Since the summer of 2004 Ayako had been telling the children that they needed to go to Japan to visit their ‘gravely’ ill maternal grandfather. Similar trips had been made in the past and the February court order clearly set out what Ayako needed to do in order to take the children to Japan. However, Ayako failed to take steps necessary to make such a trip possible. It was left to me and Brett to deal with the children’s anxiety and disappointment about not being able to go to see their grandfather. Takara was particularly upset about the situation.

I have always supported the children going to Japan because I recognize the importance of their maintaining a connection to their Japanese heritage. Consequently, as Ayako’s scheduled November vacation time approached, I initiated discussions that resulted in an Order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia which permitted the children to travel to Japan in the fall of 2004. The order specified departure and return dates, stated that the Supreme Court of British Columbia had sole jurisdiction over the children and prohibited Ayako from making application for custody in any other jurisdiction.

I didn’t really trust Ayako, but I felt that not allowing the children to go to Japan would be harmful to them. I knew that Japan was not signatory to the Hague Convention, but the court orders were very clear and I knew where the children would be. I knew that Japan and Canada had strong diplomatic ties so I decided that, if anything went wrong, I would be able to work with Ayako’s parents and Japanese authorities to get the children home again. I was wrong.

As soon as the children were gone, I found out that Ayako had canceled the child maintenance cheques she had given me at the airport. I also discovered that Ayako had shipped 18 boxes (350 kg) of household goods, including children’s toys and clothing, to Japan and abandoned her apartment with three month’s rent owing. She left no forwarding address with the post office, her bank, her employer, or her creditors. She also gave up her job as a flight attendant at Air Canada, calling in sick the day she left and then severing communications with her employer altogether. Unable to contact her after she had used her last three days of sick leave, the company terminated her employment on December 12, 2004.

A Canadian warrant for Ayako’s arrest was issued in January, 2005. She is charged with two counts of child abduction, an indictable offense with a maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment. The RCMP has informed INTERPOL of the warrant and the Canadian government has made repeated formal requests of the Japanese government to return the children to Canada and to extradite Ayako Wood. The Japanese government’s response has been that, since they are not signatory to the Hague Convention, they are not obligated to comply with the Canadian requests.

My Japanese lawyer recommended I make a habeas corpus application at the Japanese District Court in Saitama. By arguing that the children were being unlawfully detained, we hoped to obligate the Japanese courts to make a quick decision. Since the Canadian law was so clear, it seemed logical that the Japanese courts would apply it and return the children to my custody. All of this should have taken place in a matter of weeks. It didn’t.

Explaining the Canadian law to the Saitama District Court proved to be a very time consuming and expensive exercise. We provided full translations of the Canadian judgments and extensive explanations of Canadian family law. My lawyers made many appearances providing compelling evidence that Ayako had defied lawful court orders and intentionally deceived both Canadian and Japanese courts. For example, Ayako initially denied shipping anything to Japan before leaving Canada but, when my lawyers produced an invoice detailing the contents of the boxes that she had sent to Japan in mid- November 2004, Ayako changed her story. She stated that she had shipped her belongings to Japan because, having abandoned her apartment and made arrangements to stay with an unnamed friend upon her return to Vancouver, she had no place to store her things in Canada. The court found this to be a reasonable explanation despite the invoice which showed that the cost of shipping her belongings to Japan was the equivalent of 2 month’s rent. There was apparently nothing unusual about a mother rendering herself and her children homeless simply in order to take a short trip to Okinawa. The court then claimed it was reasonable that she decided to violate the court order only after arriving in Japan, and that she had not planned it all in advance.

The Saitama District Court then determined that the children were not ‘detained’ since they ‘wanted’ to stay in Japan. The court’s conclusion was based on Ayako’s outrageous written statements and testimony, as well as the report of a court researcher (a retired Family Court judge with no training in child psychology). The researcher’s report relied on information gathered in interviews with the children that took place 6 months after they had been abducted. In those six months the children had been denied all contact with their Canadian family. In separate interviews, the children both gave exactly the same reasons for wanting to stay in Japan. They talked about enjoying school and having more time to play with their friends. The Japanese Courts completely ignored conflicting evidence from Steven Chapman, the Consul of the Canadian Embassy. He visited the Maniwa residence on December 9, 2004 just after Ayako and the children had arrived from Okinawa. The children had not yet been to school in Japan and had had no opportunity to make friends in the area. However, Ayako told Mr. Chapman that she intended to stay in Japan and apply for custody of the children because she did not want to live according to the Orders of the Canadian courts.

Since the children left Vancouver last November, I have been denied the right to talk to or see Takara and Manami. My family and I have made countless phone calls and have sent hundreds of postcards to the children, but have received no response whatsoever. My only direct contact with the children was a brief meeting in front of the court that was orchestrated with such insensitivity and ineptitude that it likely did the children more harm than good. The total time allotted for the reunification was fifteen minutes. I was not allowed to have any time alone with my children. The court expressed concern that I might try to influence them. It is interesting that the court researcher and the judges were unconcerned about Ayako influence on the children over the previous six months. They readily used the children’s clearly scripted statements to justify their disregard for Canadian law.

My lawyers appealed the District Court decision, hoping to get a more reasonable interpretation of the evidence at the Supreme Court. However, on September 9, 2005, the Supreme Court of Japan refused to hear our appeal, stating that, “misrepresentation of the facts by the defendant or illegality of the defendant’s actions” were not sufficient grounds for appeal. After 10 months of drawn-out legal proceedings, the highest court in Japan decided to ignore the crimes that Ayako committed and the ridiculous lies she has told to try to justify her actions. The court has disregarded Canadian Court Orders and refused the Canadian government’s repeated requests to return the children to their rightful home.

In the 10 months it has taken for the courts to consider and reject my habeas corpus application, Ayako has applied for and been granted custody of the children by the Saitama Family Court. In his Reasons for Judgment, Judge Shimizu Atsushi employed some mind-numbing logic. He stated that:

the plaintiff’s behaviors of requesting for 6-month leave, disposing of part of the household goods, and packing up and shipping her and her children’s clothing, etc. to her parents’ place in Japan may strongly suggest that the plaintiff did not have an intention to come back to Canada. However, when the plaintiff traveled to Japan with the children in November 2002 and November 2003 based on the similar court orders, she came back to Canada. The plaintiff had no other choice but to evacuate her residence and planned to stay at her friend’s place when she returned to Canada. She was employed by Air Canada and was mainly attending flights to and from Asia, including Japan. Taking account of these facts, it is a rather reasonable behavior for the plaintiff to ship the clothing, etc. that cannot fit into the friend’s house to the parents’ house in Japan for storage purposes. If the plaintiff did not intend to return to Canada from the beginning, she would have closed the bank account, but she did not do so. Further, no rational explanation can be found for the plaintiff’s action of arranging to stop the cheques other than concern as to the possible burden of overdraft charges for dishonored cheques. From a comprehensive standpoint, it is not possible to admit that the plaintiff accepted the November 26 Orders, disguising her intention of not returning to Canada, for the purpose of taking the children. Apart from the above facts, there exists no sufficient evidence that supports the defendant’s assertion.

Judge Shimizu Atsushi concluded that, “even with the illegality of the plaintiff, it is still the best interest for the welfare of the children to change the custody of both of them to the plaintiff [Ayako] from the defendant [Murray], respecting Takara’s will and giving sufficient consideration to [Manami’s] will.” The Judge dealt with the fact that Manami is far to young to be able to state her will and is a Canadian citizen only (whereas Takara holds dual citizenship) by claiming that, “if change of custody is not approved with respect to [Manami], it may result in separating Takara and [Manami] in Japan and Canada ...Therefore, for the purpose of conforming to the welfare (best interest) of [Manami], the order should be to change the custody with respect to [Manami].”

In summary, Judge Shimizu Atsushi acknowledged that the Canadian Orders were valid and admitted that Ayako had abducted the children to Japan. However, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he accepted Ayako’s explanation of why the children were still in Japan. Ayako claimed that, when she left Canada, she intended to bring the children home as ordered. However, according to Ayako, once the children arrived in Japan they realized that life there with their mother was much preferable to life in Canada. They asked to stay in Japan forever, voluntarily severing all ties with the home and family they had always known.

Having accepted that staying in Japan was the children’s idea, Judge Shimizu Atsushi reversed the Canadian Custody Order in order to ‘respect the will’ of the children. His decision, then, was based on the statements of a ten year old boy and an eight year old girl who, as might be expected of children in their difficult situation, stated their preference to remain with the abducting parent after having been denied all access to the left behind parent for over six months.

My lawyers appealed this decision but, on September 21, 2005 the Appellate Court upheld the Family Court’s decision. I have not been able to get a translation of the Appellate Court decision but the Japanese text of this decision, as well as bilingual versions of most of the relevant Japanese and Canadian court documents can be found on my website at:

http://public.sd38.bc.ca/~MWood/

My lawyer has applied for special appeal of the Appellate Court decision (a long shot at best) and is now working on getting me access to my children. However, my faith in the Japanese court system is wearing a little thin at the moment.

July 2006 Update

The Japanese government delivered official notice of it's refusal to consider the Canadian governments request for assistance in prosecuting Ayako Wood for child abduction. This appears to mark both the first time the Canadian government has formally requested the return of a person accused of abducting children from Canada to Japan, and the first time Japan has formally refused to facilitate the administration of justice in a Canadian parental abduction case.  I am still awaiting clarification from the Japanese government as to their reasons for not considering the Canadian request.

August 2006 Update

Marilyn and Ian Wood, Brett Whitelaw and I delivered a petition with over 800 signatures requesting Takara and Manami's return to the Japanese consulate in Vancouver.

Timeline