Dual nationality children and respect of visitation rights after a divorce in Japan : A priority of the French presidency of the EU for the forthcoming six months

On the 2nd of July 2008, the French President of the European Union has announced its priorities for the forthcoming six months to the Ambassadors and Heads of Mission of the 27 member countries of the European Union.

With regard to Japan, according to European sources, the French presidency has announced the consular issue of Japan’s failure to respect parental visitation rights with their children as one of the four top priorities.

France must deal, together with other European countries, the US and Canada, with the problem of visitation rights with the children of divorced bi-national couples residing in Japan.

Around 20 French citizens are denied this right. Even when a judge decides provides visitation rights, the police do not enforce these judicial decisions. Often rather than uphold the judicial decisions, Japanes law enforcement will violate the judicial decision and often arrest the parent endeavoring to have his visitation right respected, inappropriately making false accusations that the foreign parent is being a stalker, or that he/she is menacing the public order.

According to European sources, given the absence of commitment from the Japanese administration, the French President of the European Union has invited the 27 members of the European Union to exert pressure on the Japanese government as this problem can potentially harm the image of Japan in the international community.


Enfants binationaux et respect du droit de visite après un jugement au Japon : une priorité de la Présidence française pour les six prochains mois

Le 2 juillet 2008, la France a présenté ses priorités pour les six prochains mois de la présidence française de l’Union Européenne aux Ambassadeurs et Chefs de mission des 27 pays membres.

De source européenne, en ce qui concerne le Japon, la Présidence française a placé les affaires consulaires en matière de non-présentation d’enfant parmi ses quatre priorités,

La France doit faire face, comme tous les autres pays de l’Union européenne, les Etats-Unis et le Canada, au problème du respect du droit de visite après un jugement de divorce dans le cas d’enfants de couples binationaux en résidence au Japon.

Plus d’une vingtaine de ressortissants français voient actuellement leur droit de visite bafoué malgré un jugement rendu au Japon. Quand bien même ce droit de visite a été légiféré par le juge des affaires familiales, il n’est pas appliqué et la police n’est d’aucun recours, si ce n’est au contraire pour interpeller le parent qui insiste pour le respect de ses droits au titre qu’il trouble l’ordre public.

En l’absence d’un quelconque engagement de l’administration japonaise à résoudre ces problèmes, la Présidence française a invité, selon nos sources européennes, les 27 pays membres de l’Union Européenne à exercer toute pression utile pour convaincre le gouvernement japonais que ce problème peut nuire à l’image du Japon sur la scène internationale.

Source : http://afe-asie-nord.org/?p=294

Manifestation du réseau Oyakonet à Tokyo, le 13 juillet 2008

Le réseau japonais Oyakonet a organisé un symposium rassemblant de nombreuses associations de parents privés de leur enfant. Nous diffuserons d’autres vidéos de cet événement très prochainement sur ce site.
Voici aujourd’hui une petite vidéo de la manifestation qui a suivi le symposium.

Manifestation Oyakonet 13 juillet 2008 from Christian Bouthier on Vimeo.


Source : http://mainichi.jp/area/tokyo/news/20080715ddlk13040254000c.html

親子面会交流ネット:親権者に拒否された親たち、権利の法制化求め設立 /東京







Activités des associations de parents japonaises

Une séance de travail pour le lancement du réseau des associations luttant pour l’établissement d’un droit de visite aux enfants de la part du parent qui n’en a pas eu la garde suite à une séparation ou un divorce a eu lieu le dimanche 13 juillet. Des détails seront publiés prochainement sur ce blog. Les photos sont déjà disponibles ici :

Les photos de la conférence de presse du 15 juillet 2008 sont en ligne ici :


Press Conference at FCCJ – Children Lost in Japan

The Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan
Press Conference, Thierry Consigny, Colin Jones & Takao Tanase
15:00-16:00 Monday, July 14, 2008
(The speech and Q & A will be in English)

“Children Lost in Japan”

An intense debate is occurring now in the media in Japan, at the Japanese Federation of Bar Associations (Nichibenren), and within the Japanese political system about adapting Japanese civil law to changes within Japanese society and to fulfilling Japan’s international legal obligations.

The latest government survey shows that over 160,000 parents in Japan cannot meet their children after a separation or divorce, and only in the best of cases are able to meet their children after the children reach adulthood. Foreign parents of dual citizenship children are no exception, with an estimated 10,000 or more such children falling into this situation. Foreign parents face additional obstacles in maintaining access with their children because of inequitable Japanese immigration policies, making it difficult for foreign parents to continue to legally live and work in Japan after a separation or divorce.

Today, 18 Japanese NPO and volunteer associations have tied up with left-behind parent associations from the U.S., UK, Canada, and France to lobby Japanese parliamentarians about changing the law.

We are at a very crucial moment where key LDP and DJP members are acting on these issues, with Japan having declared it will sign the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction as early as 2010, and adapt Japanese law to comply with this treaty beforehand.

The following experts will contribute to a press conference at the FCCJ on July 14:

  • Colin Jones, Attorney at Law (New York Bar), Law Professor of Doshisha University Law School;
  • Takao Tanase, Attorney at Law, registered with JFBA (Japan Federation of Bar Associations,
    Nichibenren), Committee on Family Law Legislation, and Law Professor of Chuo University Law School;
  • Thierry Consigny, elected member of the Assembly for French Overseas Nationals (AFE) for Japan and North Asia.

Note from Thierry Consigny: Attendance is restricted to FCCJ members but hand-outs will be posted on this website.

Hard work begins once Japan signs child-abduction treaty

Hard work begins once Japan signs child-abduction treaty

If my own mailbox is any indicator, the Internet is buzzing as international family lawyers, family rights activists and others share an exciting piece of news: Japan is reportedly planning to join the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction! Perhaps Japan’s days as a haven for international parental child abduction are numbered. Perhaps Japanese courts will stop giving the judicial seal of approval to one parent’s selfish desire to erase the other from a child’s life. Fingers crossed.

Though one could question the timing of the very low-key announcement two months before the Hokkaido G8 Summit the Japanese authorities should be commended for taking what will be a big step forward in the sphere of private international law. The concerted pressure of diplomats from a number of countries (including several G8 nations) who have pushed Japan on this issue for years, and the efforts of activists often parents who have lost any hope of being part of their own children’s lives but have continued to speak up for the benefit of others must also be acknowledged and

I must confess to having been skeptical that this would happen so soon (it could happen as early as 2010) if at all. I will be glad ecstatic to be proved wrong. However, I do not plan to crack open any champagne until an abducted child is actually returned home. International treaties, like marriages and childbirth, are events to be celebrated, but all of the hard work comes afterward.

By entering into the convention, Japan will be agreeing with other signatory countries that children wrongfully brought to Japan even by a parent will be promptly returned. One key aspect of the convention is that it limits the role of judges in these decisions. Rather than deciding whether remaining in Japan is in a child’s best interests (which has almost always been the conclusion of Japanese judges in abduction cases), in cases under the convention judges are limited to deciding whether a child has been brought from his or her home country « wrongfully » (in violation of foreign law or court orders, without the consent of the other parent, etc.). If the removal is found to be wrongful, absent exceptional circumstances the judge is supposed to order the child’s return. All this is supposed to happen on an expedited basis in order to prevent a new status quo from developing in the child’s living environment.

Two other aspects of the convention are noteworthy. First, signatory countries are obliged to help locate abducted children. This would be a great improvement over the current situation in Japan, where parents who are able to commence what is likely to be hopelessly futile litigation in Japan’s family courts are actually the lucky ones, since this means they at least know where their children are. Less lucky parents have to try and find their children somewhere in the country, often disadvantaged by barriers of language and culture. The act of trying to find or communicate with your own child may even be deemed a form of stalking.

Second, the convention protects rights of access (or visitation, as it is called in some countries). Thus even foreign parents who do not have custody over their children can use the convention to try to preserve contact with children brought to Japan. Courts in some convention countries have been aggressive in interpreting this provision to ensure that even a parent with full custody does not use those rights to frustrate visitation by the other by relocating to a foreign country. Since Japanese courts typically only award visitation if both parents agree, and visitation orders are unenforceable anyway, any improvement in this area would be welcome.
Enforcement of return orders is likely to be the big hurdle for Japan in implementing the convention. Enforcement is an obstacle even in strictly domestic disputes between Japanese parents over child abduction or denial of access. Since family court orders are unenforceable, one wonders what will happen when the first return order is issued by a Japanese judge under the convention. It is, after all, clearly limited to the civil aspects of child abduction it does not require that children be returned by force.

In the U.S. or Canada, whether a case arises under the convention or not, court orders are backed by quasi-criminal sanctions such as contempt. In some states interfering with custody or visitation is itself a criminal offense. Even if it is not, a parent in these countries seeking to enforce access rights or the return of a child can usually call upon the police to help them. In extreme cases intransigent parents resisting enforcement may be arrested or jailed.

In Japan, however, police typically do not get involved in family matters or in the enforcement of court orders in civil matters. The only remedy available to parents with even a whiff of penal sanction involved is habeas corpus (which requires an abducting parent to appear with the child in court), though access to this remedy in disputes between parents has been limited by the Supreme Court.

It seems unlikely that Japan joining the convention alone would change this basic aspect of the country’s legal system, since it would involve the police (and prosecutors) in a vast new area of law enforcement family disputes when only a tiny fraction of such disputes would involve the Hague Convention. Perhaps some enforcement mechanism limited to convention cases will be developed, though it would be an odd (though not impossible) result if parents and children from abroad got a better deal in the Japanese legal system than those actually living in Japan. Furthermore, bureaucratic imperatives being at least as important as actual law in Japan, it is difficult to imagine how the police and prosecutors could ever find it in their interests to be arresting Japanese parents (more often than not mothers) in order to return Japanese children to foreigners.

Thus, if Japan joins the convention, its implementation may develop in one of three ways. First, it may be implemented as it is in other major countries and abducted children will be returned through its procedures great! Or judges will issue return orders that prove impossible to enforce, leaving things largely as they are now. Perhaps convention cases will be given greater access to habeas corpus, which could be an improvement.

A third possibility, however, is that rather than issuing orders they know are unenforceable (or to avoid being seen as favoring foreigners), judges aggressively take advantage of the exceptions in the convention. One of these is that children do not need to be returned if it would « expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. » In some countries this exception is limited to cases where the child would be returned to a war zone, or similar situations.
However, if the reasons used for denying visitation are any indicator excessive present-buying, visitation making the custodial parent ill, etc. are any indicator, the bar for applying the psychological harm exception may end up being low.

Under the convention, another reason for refusing to return the child is if « the child objects and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views. » Since the convention does not specify what this age is, it gives courts a high degree of flexibility.
Thus Japanese courts could continue to reward parental alienation by placing the burden of deciding on children. Getting children to say « I don’t want to see Daddy Mommy » seems to work pretty well for getting a court to deny visitation, so getting them to say « I want to stay in Japan with Daddy/Mommy/Grandma » may work in convention cases too.

I feel like a bit of a wet blanket writing this. Make no mistake, it will be great if Japan actually does join the convention. Whatever help Japanese authorities need in understanding and implementing the convention should be offered unstintingly. Anything which improves the situation of children abducted to Japan is to be applauded. And if joining the convention somehow leads to improvements for the many more Japanese children in strictly domestic cases who lose one parent through judicial action (or inaction), it would be almost revolutionary.

*Colin P.A. Jones is a professor at Doshisha University Law School.*

Source : http://www.hawaii.edu/aplpj/articles/APLPJ_08.2_jones.pdf

Japan to sign Hague Treaty on Kids

Source: http://www.japaninc.com/tt469

Two weeks ago, the Japanese government made a notable announcement that may make Japan more compatible with the legal conventions used internationally, and will be of particular benefit to non-Japanese spouses of Japanese.
The announcement was that by 2010, Japan would sign the the 1980 Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, an international legal construct that attempts to deal with the thorny issue of court jurisdiction when children of international marriages are moved cross-border, often by a parent trying to thwart a court ruling in the previous jurisdiction.
Currently, Japan is known as a haven for disaffected Japanese spouses who, in getting divorced, abscond with their kids back to Japan. Once in Japan they can dare their foreign spouses to try getting the kids back — something that despite around 13,000 international divorces a year in Japan and more overseas, has NEVER happened.
The reason for this astounding statistic, that of zero repatriations of abducted children from international marriages after the kids have been abducted to Japan, is entirely to do with the attitudes of the Japanese judiciary and their wish to maintain 19th Century customs in the face of international pressure. Japan has ratified many parts of the Hague Convention treaties over the years, but in terms of repatriation of kids, they have been claiming for 20 years now to be « studying » the issue. That’s Japan-speak for « we’re not interested in making any changes ».
Our guess is that the recent announcement occurred after pressure from the USA and Canada, in particular. Things started to come to a head about 5 years ago, when fed up by repeating occurences of child abductions from both of those countries, and despite court decisions there for custody to go to the local parent, the consular staff of a number of these foreign embassies started holding annual summits to discuss the problem. These discussions escalated to pressure on foreign governmental agencies and politicians in some of Japan’s biggest trading partners — and finally someone spoke to the Japanese government at a sufficiently high enough level to get their attention.
The subject became especially sensitive when the Japanese were at the peak of their indignation over the North Korean abductions of Japanese citizens several years ago, and were seeking international support. All the while, Japanese law allowed similar types of abductions here.
In case you’re not up on the state of play, there were 44,000 international marriages registered in Japan in 2006, and probably a good percentage of that number again of Japanese marrying overseas but not bothering to register back in Japan. The divorce rate within Japan is about 30%, and for Japanese living overseas (take the US as an example), it is typical of the local population, so more like 50%-60%. Thus there are a lot of international separations — many of which are not amicable.
But it’s when the kids are involved that things start getting really nasty. Usually in the case of a divorced international couple going to court overseas and after custody is awarded, if one of the parents fears a possible adbuction situation, the couple can be placed under a restraining order not to travel without the other spouse’s consent. The USA, Canada, Australia, and UK all do this. The kids’ passports will often be withheld as well. Unfortunately, there have been a number of cases where the Japanese spouse then « loses » the kids Japanese passports and applies to the local consulate for replacements — only to hop a flight back to Tokyo a few hours later, with the kids in tow.
Once in Japan, the jurisdiction suddenly falls to the Japanese courts, even if there is a foreign arrest warrant out for the absconding partner, and in several cases, even if there is an Interpol arrest warrant out. In Japan, there is no concept of joint custody, and the partner allowed to keep the kids is the one that has held them for the previous few months.
The courts’ opinion here is that kids need a stable environment, and the act of being the only guardian for a period of time, even if that guardian was in hiding, qualifies for this — unless the kids are under 5 years old, in which case they will typically be returned to the mother (if the father is the abscondee), or to the father if the mother has deceased. But not always. There are cases where the Japanese mother has died and the Japanese grandparents have kept the kids, instead of returning them to the foreign father. You can read more about this sad state of affairs at http://www.crnjapan.com/en/.
You won’t believe that this kind of thing is still going on in a first-world country like Japan in the 21st century.
The Japanese court attitude thereby encourages Japanese spouses wanting to hang on to their kids to hightail it back to Japan and lie low for 6 months. Currently there has been no case, even after the Japanese Supreme Court has awarded rightful custody to the foreign parent, where that aggrieved foreign parent has been able to go get their kids back. The reason is quite simply that Japan doesn’t have a mechanism for properly enforcing civil suit judgments, and typically a breach of an order in a civil suit does not result in the offender being subject to a subsequent criminal suit.
Thus, the Hague Convention on child abduction provides a mechanism whereby if children are illegally removed from their country of habitual residence, they must be returned, and the jurisdiction for subsequent court decisions is taken out of the hands of the Japanese courts. This is the first step in making international court rulings involving kids, stick.
We believe that this is going to be a long and slow process, but once the treaty is signed and the first few cases start to be heard, either the kids involved will be returned or the parent trying to hang on to them will create an international brouhaha that will highlight to the world the lack of protection of rights for international parents here in Japan. Who knows, maybe this will start another process — that of allowing foreigners actually residing within Japan to also regain the simple right of access to their children after a divorce.
But in reality we think this level of change will take several more generations and a lot more foreigners living in Japan to achieve…

La famille au Japon – Réfléchir au bonheur de l’enfant après le divorce

Le bonheur de l’enfant est au coeur des préoccupations de conférences et de symposiums de plus en plus nombreux, comme celui récent sur « Le divorce et l’enfant, réfléchir au droit de garde partagé », thème d’un symposium organisé par la Fédération des association du barreau japonais (nichibenren).

Le droit de l’enfant au bonheur est un droit inaliénable mais celui-ci rencontre au Japon deux difficultés majeures :

  • le droit de garde unique qui peut couper l’enfant de son deuxième parent jusqu’à la majorité ;
  • l’absence du droit de visite inscrit dans la loi qui dans les faits se traduit par 20 % de droits de visite, sans recours de justice qui permette de remédier à la non-présentation d’enfant.

Cette amorce de nouvelle réflexion marque le début d’un changement absolument extraordinaire, alors que des dizaines de milliers de parents divorcés au Japon sont pratiquement coupés de leur enfant depuis des années, dont trente à quarante pères et mères françaises, et peut-être bien davantage de parents français, qui ont perdu tout espoir et ne se signalent plus.

L’Allemagne, la France, les USA, l’Angleterre et l’Italie ont servi de comparaison au cours de ce symposium en termes du droit de la famille sur l’autorité parentale et la garde partagée.

Tous ces pays, et récemment plus proches du Japon, la Chine et la Corée ont fait des avancées qui vont dans le sens d’un droit familial qui permette à l’enfant l’accès à deux parents, ses grands-parents, et dans le cas de couples internationaux, l’accès à deux langues et deux cultures, deux pays.

Alors que se célèbre le 150e anniversaire des relations diplomatiques entre nos deux pays, je souhaite déployer toute mon énergie pour faire progresser ce dossier douloureux des relations franco-japonaises, en m’appuyant sur nos contacts politiques au Parlement japonais (Diète) et en travaillant étroitement avec les associations familiales japonaises qui revendiquent les mêmes changements dans le droit familial.

Source: http://afe-asie-nord.org/?p=242 

Comment l’aliénation parentale peut être meurtrière


You can find below the Japanese translation of this article)

Film (映画)

L’ E N F E R

(Titre japonais : 美しき運命の傷痕)
(Utsukushiki unmei no kizuato : Les belles cicatrices du destin)

Film français (2005) du réalisateur bosniaque Danis Tanovic, avec Emmanuelle Béart, Carole Bouquet, Karin Viard, Marie Gillain, Jacques Perrin, Jacques Gamblin, Guillaume Canet, Miki Manojlovic et Jean Rochefort, …

A travers le destin parallèle de trois sœurs, de vies et d’âge éloignés et ne se voyant plus depuis des années, ayant néanmoins en commun une impossibilité à réussir leur vie affective, nous remontons peu à peu à l’origine de ces blessures du cœur qui les mènent à l’échec : le rejet et l’élimination de leur père, sur la base d’un tragique malentendu, par une mère toute puissante et vengeresse qui a tordu en elles les racines de l’amour et rompu le lien familial.

Le film fait référence au mythe grec de Médée la magicienne, fille du roi de Colchide et nièce de Circé (Cf. Médée, tragédie d’Euripide). Médée aide Jason à s’emparer de la Toison d’Or, puis devient son épouse. Mais Jason lui est infidèle et la jalousie de Médée est immense. Pour le punir, elle sait qu’elle ne pourra l’atteindre qu’à travers leurs enfants, pour lesquels Jason éprouve un très grand amour. Médée les tue de ses mains et Jason, fou de douleur et de désespoir, se suicide.

Par la présentation du suicide quasiment programmé du père et du meurtre psychique des trois filles, amputées par leur mère de la moitié d’elles-mêmes et vouées au malheur, le film montre l’intemporalité du mythe et son actualité : la Médée moderne (incarnée de façon impressionante par une Carole Bouquet hiératique et sans âge) n’est ni moins cruelle, ni moins exempte de regrets. Et les effets de ses pulsions destructrices, mues par une féminité et un instinct maternel pervertis, sont tout aussi dévastateurs et tragiques : jalousie, dureté et fantasme de toute puissance et d’appropriation exclusive des enfants sont les ingrédients de ce cocktail mortifère qui, ajoutés à la certitude d’être dans le juste et dans le bien (le bon droit et la bonne conscience), font alors d’une mère et d’une épouse (qui se pense comme mère et épouse modèles), un implacable bourreau. Murée dans sa haine jusqu’au bout, même après la révélation de la vérité, elle semble n’avoir rien appris et n’être plus capable de rien ressentir, pas même (surtout) la détresse de ses filles.

Sentiment d’étrangeté, pour le moins inquiétante et ô combien déroutante, que celui éprouvé par beaucoup de Roméo même fidèles, voyant leur aimante Juliette se transformer, comme fatalement, en peu d’années et généralement après la venue des enfants, en une glaciale et funeste Médée qui les prive désormais autant de son affection que de celle de leurs enfants, déniant injustement à ceux-ci, de façon discrétionnaire, tout accès à leur père. Et qui le pousse, lui, vers la sortie…
Mystère du devenir de ce que Freud dénomme le Continent noir : « (…) elle rassemble les traits d’un irrationnel où la maternité productive et positive se renverse en une puissance de mort. Or tel est bien le problème central de la réflexion féministe contemporaine. En effet, si dans la fonction maternelle, une femme peut ressentir, en tant qu’individu, le risque d’un clivage opéré sur son corps et d’une perte d’identité, si la maternité ne dit pas le tout de la féminité, cette dernière sera renvoyée, par un principe d’exclusion, à l’espace négatif de la sorcière : solitaire, mutique, asociale, improductive, repliée sur une féminité en absence, confrontée à l’image persécutrice de sa propre mère, une telle femme sera projetée dans un processus de déconstruction de type psychotique que l’écriture, ce « garde-fou » (Lara Jefferson, Folle entre les folles), ne suffira pas à détourner ou à objectiver. » (Encyclopædia Universalis, Féminisme).

Cette figure mythique de Médée n’est pas sans évoquer la Yamamba (ou Yama Uba, 山姥) japonaise, tueuse d’hommes, emmenant l’enfant Kintarô dans les montagnes pour l’élever seule.

Ces exemples-types de dévoiement de la féminité et d’aliénation parentale, aux conséquences tragiques pour les familles, fixés par le mythe dans des cultures aussi éloignées dans le temps et dans l’espace que la Grèce antique, le Japon et la Russie (Baba Yaga), pour ne citer que celles-là, tendraient à montrer l’universalité du type et la dangerosité du problème (1).

Mais le plus inquiétant est que, par un phénomène mis récemment en évidence par la psychogénéalogie, la tragédie a, hélas, toutes les « chances » de se répéter : les générations suivantes, par « fidélité familiale inconsciente », vont, malgré elles, reproduire les comportements d’exclusion et de meurtre symbolique ou réel (suicide provoqué) dont elles ont elles-mêmes souffert, scellant à leur insu leur propre destin et celui de leurs enfants.

Le film de Danis Tanovic illustre bien ce phénomène, fonctionnant comme un pattern reproductible, notamment par l’évocation du destin la sœur aînée, singulièrement nommée Sophie (la Sagesse ?), incarnée par Emmanuelle Béart : dépressive et égarée par la jalousie, elle se vengera de son mari infidèle en l’excluant de la famille, reproduisant comme mécaniquement sur ses propres enfants et sur son mari l’aliénation parentale dont elle a été elle-même victime étant enfant (aliénation dont on peut sans peine imaginer les conséquences sur la génération suivante, et ainsi de suite…).

Peut-on parler de destin ? C’est peut-être une des faiblesses du film que de s’appuyer sur cette référence individuelle antique, et de l’opposer aux coïncidences de la modernité. Car s’il y a « destin », il est, ici, nécessairement collectif, c’est-à-dire qu’il est le produit d’un inconscient familial. C’est alors de répétition inconsciente d’une pathologie familiale qu’il faudrait plutôt parler, et ici de Syndrome d’Aliénation Parentale (S.A.P, ou P.A.S en anglais, en japonais 片親引き離し症候群, kataoya hikihanashi shôkôgun).

Dans un tel contexte familial, la mise en évidence du syndrome est la première étape à franchir pour éviter de s’égarer sur de fausses pistes, et un long travail, aux résultats incertains, restera à faire ensuite avec les enfants pour en déjouer les maléfices et défaire les nœuds, en tentant de (les) sortir de l’enfer de la répétition.

Mais encore faudra-t-il que les conditions, ou les évènements, le permettent…


(1) Voir, à ce propos, une approche récente du substrat psychologique de ces comportements pervers dans les ouvrages suivants :

  • NAOURI Aldo(アルド・ナウリ), Les Pères et les Mères, Odile Jacob, poches, Paris, 2005
  • 三砂ちずる「オニババ化する女達」、光文社新書,2004年

MISUNA Chizuru, Onibaba ka suru onnatachi, (Les femmes qui se changent en
sorcières), 2004, Kôbunsha shinsho


Continuer la lecture de Comment l’aliénation parentale peut être meurtrière