Amer-Asian Child Support Cases
in Practice and the
Potential of the 2007 Convention
Kazumi Hasegawa, Esq.
Annette Eddie-Callagain, Esq.
Gary Caswell, Esq.
Child Support in Japan
Kazumi Hasegawa – Japan and USA
 Legal Basis for Child Support
 Statistics, Process, and Execution
 Recognition of Foreign Child Support
Orders
 Practical Considerations Pertaining to the
2007 Convention
Overview
• Child Support: National Law – Not
Individual Prefecture Law
• Divorce, Separation, Parentage
• Calculation and Duration of Support
• Enforcement of Support; Garnishment
of Wages
Obligation to Pay Child Support
•
Prior to 2012, parents participating in uncontested divorce
settlement should resolve the issue of child custody
•
Since 2012, parents participating in uncontested divorce settlement
should also resolve child visitation and child support based on the
best interest of the child (Civil Code 766; revised in 2011 and
effective 4/2012).
•
No joint custody system in Japan and the non-custodial parent pays
child support to custodial parent
•
Unmarried couple – acknowledgment of father in the family
registry is required to obtain child support
•
•
•
Voluntary acknowledgment – Civil Code 779
Involuntary acknowledgment – Civil Code 787
Child support obligation from the birth – Civil Code 784
Statistics: Divorce Rates in Japan
Ministry of Health Labor and Welfare
Statistics: Divorce Rate in International Couples
Ministry of Health Labor and Welfare
Statistics: Ratio Between Marriage and Divorce Rates
Process: Who comes for Child
Support Consultation
Women 78.8%
Men
19.5%
Organization
0.9%
Unknown 0.8%
Ministry of Health Labor and Welfare
(4/2013 – 3/2014)
Process: When Child Support
Consultation Takes Place
Prior to Divoce
36.7%
Post Divorce
55.5%
Unmarried 6.5%
Other 0.9%
Unknown 0.3%
Ministry of Health Labor and Welfare
(4/2013 – 3/2014)
Process: Consultation Matter
Process 29%
Calculation 23%
Default payment
12%
Amount
Reduction 8%
Amount Increase
2%
Garnishment 5%
Visitation 9%
Other 12%
Ministry of Health Labor and Welfare
(4/2013 – 3/2014)
Single Family Homes and Receipt of
Child Support
Single
Mother
Household
Single
Father
House Hold
Child Support
Arrangements
37.7%
17.5%
Actual Receipt
of Child
Support
19.7%
4.1%
(Based on: 2011 Survey on single families in Japan）
Ministry of Health Labor and Welfare
Effect of Amendment of Civil
Code 766 (4/2012)
Divorce cases with minor
children (4/2012 – 3/2013)
131,2564
With Visitation Terms
72,770 (55%)
With Child Support
Terms
73,001 (56%)
Ministry of Justice 2013
Process: Where to get help
•
Child Support Consultation Support
Center （Sponsored by MHLW）
•
Legal Affairs Bureau – free legal clinics
•
Non- Profit Organizations
•
Bar Associations / Attorneys
Child Support Obligation:
•
•
•
•
Begins When the Custodial Parent First Requests
it
Retroactive only to Date of First Request
In Parentage Case may be Retroactive to Date of
Birth
Frequency of payment:
•
•
Periodic payment most common, i.e., monthly
Lump Sum payments have been ordered in
international cases where NCP is a foreigner
Establishment: How Child
Support Arrangement is Made
The process depends on the type of divorce proceeding
•
Uncontested divorce – Civil Code 763
•
•
Notarized document
Oral or written agreement
•
Conciliation Proceeding – Domestic Relations Case
Procedure Act 268 / 284 (in effect 1/2013)
•
Trial (Civil Code 770)
Duration and Calculation
of Child Support
•
Duration: not established by law
•
•
typically paid until the child reaches the age of
majority (20 years old) unless otherwise agreed
(e.g. through college, etc.)
Calculation:
•
•
Goal: Maintain same standard of living the
child is accustomed to
Based on matrix prepared by court
•
•
Income of both parents
Special circumstances (needs of child)
Enforcement of Child Support
•
Conciliation Proceeding May be Utilized:
•
•
•
•
To obtain enforcement when oral or written
agreement of child support is not complied with
To seek modification of amount of child support
Notice of request for payment or Notice of order
to pay child support
Compulsory execution
•
•
Court-Ordered Support
Notarized Agreement to Pay Support
Compulsory Execution
•
Pre-requisite:
•
•
•
•
•
Garnishment of wages
Amount entitled to garnish
•
•
•
Notarized uncontested divorce agreement
Conciliation Process
Trial
Prior to amended civil code (in effect 4/2004)
Post amendment – applicable to all matter specified in
Civil Execution Law 151(2)(1)
How to terminate garnishment order
•
•
Civil Execution Law 153
Defenses
Defenses to Garnishment of
Child Support
• Child Support Obligor Loses Job/Ability to
Work
• Lump Sum Payment
• Death of Obligor
• may claim inheritance
Recognition of Foreign Child
Support Orders
•
Enforcement of foreign judicial order
•
•
•
Comity
Fairness in outcome and procedure
Effect of 2007 Hague Convention
•
•
Avoid the trouble of dealing with different
judicial process
Recognition and enforcement of order
2007 Hague Convention
 Requires New Legislation to Implement More
Streamlined Japanese Establishment, Enforcement
and Modification Procedures
 Would be very helpful to Japanese Custodial Parents
Applies to All U.S. States
 Good compliment to Hague Abduction Convention
ESTABLISHING AND ENFORCING
CROSS-BORDER
CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS
HHC
Hague Conference on
Private International Law
E-C Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho
（E-C Law Center)
E-C Law Center Bldg., Suite 1F
2-4-2 Isa, Ginowan City
Okinawa, Japan 901-2221
PH: 81-98-898-0162
Fax: 81-98-899-2142
E-mail: bigfoot.account@gmail.com
NOVEMBER 9 – 12, 2015
OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM
•
BACKGROUND OF CHILD SUPPORT ISSUES
• JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES
• PATERNITY CHALLENGES
• NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE EXISTING
PROGRAM
• CHECK-CASHING CHALLENGES
BACKGROUND OF CHILD SUPPORT
ISSUES





Number of International Children in
Japan
Fathers’ Location Unknown
Paternity in Dispute
Lack of Agreement Between Japan and U.S.
May be Viewed as Lack of Jurisdiction
U.S. Involvement – PIQ 99-01
JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES
UIFSA APPLICATIONS
VS.
DIRECT APPLICATIONS
UIFSA
Under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act,
the obligee living in one state can establish or
enforce a child support order against the obligor
in another state or vice versa. Under UIFSA, a
foreign country is considered to be a “State” only
if it has enacted law and established procedures
for issuance of support orders that are
“substantially similar” to those under the UIFSA
or URESA. Japan has not done so.
POLICY INTERPRETATION
QUESTION (PIQ)
According to PIQ 99-01, from Judge Ross who was then
with the Office of Child Support Enforcement,
Washington, DC, States are required to provide child
support enforcement services to individuals who reside
in a foreign country and who apply directly to State for
paternity or support enforcement services.
Section 454(4)(A)(iii) of the Social Security Act imposes a
literal requirement that State agencies must provide Title
IV-D services to anyone who has filed a proper
application for services with the agency.

NEVADA
The couple had been divorced in Japan, and a court order was
obtained by the Petitioner, which ordered the Respondent to pay
child support. This was an enforcement action only. The
Respondent’s position was:
1. The Court should not enforce the foreign order
2. The way the foreign order was obtained was not proper
3. The Court should modify the foreign order
HOLDING: The Court did have jurisdiction of the parties and
subject matter of this case; that the Respondent personally
appeared and participated in the Japanese proceeding (he was
living in Japan at the time). After researching the law, the
Hearing Master was not able to locate any authority for the
Respondent’s argument.

KENTUCKY:
The Okinawan mother and the American father were never married; however,
they are the parents of a son. The American father presently resides in the
State of Kentucky where a child support case was filed (under UIFSA). The
initial Petition was heard in Jefferson Family Court. The father denied
paternity and a test was conducted, with the results as Positive. A court order
was issued, ordering the father to pay child support.
The father retained counsel and moved the court to dismiss the action on the
grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Respondent appealed to the
Jefferson District Court, arguing that the Court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction because the Petitioner (the mother) did not have standing, since the
Mother of the subject child is a citizen of Japan, which is not a state within the
meaning of the Statute in that it had not established reciprocal procedures for
issuance of enforcement orders, which are substantially similar to procedures
in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
The Jefferson County Circuit Court reversed the judgment and orders of the trial
court, holding that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. The
Commonwealth of Kentucky filed a Petition for discretionary review with the
Kentucky Court of Appeals. The Appeals Court denied the Motion for
discretionary review. The case was then sent to the appeals division to
determine whether they could fashion an appropriate federal question which
would allow the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court; and, whether that office
would prosecute that appeal.

CALIFORNIA:
An Okinawan mother and an American father registered a divorce by mutual agreement in Okinawa, which did
not provide for the support of the children. The mother and the children reside in Okinawa and the father
resides in California. A UIFSA Petition was filed, seeking the establishment of a child support order. The
father contested subject matter jurisdiction and the trial court found that California lacked subject matter
jurisdiction because the parents were divorced in Japan and the children continued to live there; also,
California was a forum non conveniens. The Petition for child support was dismissed by the trial court.
The Child Support Office appealed the judgment of dismissal, arguing that the court had proper subject matter
jurisdiction to establish a child order in any case where the obligor resides in California, regardless of the
presence or residence of the obligee; and California is the convenient forum for such a determination because
the Respondent and his financial information were located there and enforcement of any order for support
will be in California; and, if California did not enter the Order, the children would not have the benefit of
support from their father.
The California Court of Appeals reversed the Judgment of Dismissal, and declined to interpret the terms of UIFSA
because both parties agree that UIFSA is inapplicable to the facts before the Court. The Court did hold that
the Superior Court in California has exclusive jurisdiction over all proceedings under the Family Code.
Although the divorce decree was issued in Japan, there is no indication that it has personal jurisdiction over
the husband to enforce a support order; nor is there any indication that the husband will voluntarily submit to
jurisdiction in Japan. The Court went on to state that the County may properly proceed against the husband
in Ventura County Superior Court.
Regarding the allegation of the Husband that California Courts was not a convenient forum, the Appellate Court
held that the husband erred in his allegation that Japan is a suitable alternative forum in that the husband had
not submitted to jurisdiction in Japan, and does not appear to be amenable to the process there. And, should
he insist that a support order may only be issued by a Japanese Court, he is free to submit to jurisdiction in
Japan and litigate the matter there.
It was determined that the parents of a minor child have an equal responsibility to support their children, and that
a father who is a California resident has a duty to support his children, regardless of the presence or residence
of his wife. Further, the Court found that California had subject matter jurisdiction. Regarding the issue of
non conveniens, Japan is not a more suitable forum because litigation in either country would require
translation of documents, conversion of yen/dollars, and discovery in either would be cumbersome. The
Husband filed a Petition for a Rehearing which was denied.

MICHIGAN
Conceded that the interpretation of Direct Application for Title IV-D Services
from International Residents [OCSE-PIQ-99-01] is correct, and a direct
application to Michigan is proper.
However, the custodial parent (CP) must consider:
1.
CP must attend an interview in person;
2.
CP must attend court proceedings, in person;
3.
If an order is obtained in Michigan, then the courts will have continuing
jurisdiction over custody and visitation;
4.
CP could file in home country which would initiate an interstate action to
Michigan; their home country would then retain jurisdiction over custody
and visitation;
5.
When applying directly to Michigan, the County Prosecutor or Friend of
Court can exercise their professional legal judgment and prosecutorial
discretion in accepting or refusing to file a case.
(The state of Michigan does not have reciprocity for child support
purposes with either the Nation of Japan or the regional
government of Okinawa. If international reciprocity were
established, we would be able to assist you.)

PUERTO RICO
“Japan has no reciprocity with Puerto Rico, which is a requisite in
our Law. This precludes us from providing the service that you
are requesting for your client. The only way we could assist her
would be that an Attorney in Puerto Rico represent her.”
PATERNITY CHALLENGES
(PATERNITY IN DISPUTE)
1. DENIAL BY THE ALLEGED FATHER
2. DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION
3. COST OF DNA TESTING IN JAPAN
NUTS AND BOLTS OF PROGRAM
CONTACTS FOR CHILD
SUPPORT ASSISTANCE
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
01
03
17
45
47
36
30
37
07
08
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
07
15
10
04
08
06
03
09
08
TOTAL CONTACTS FROM 1997 TO 2015:
254
LOCATION OF MOTHERS
JAPAN











Aichi
Awamori
Fukuoka
Fussa
Gifu
Hiroshima
Hyogo
Ibaragi
Iwate
Kagoshima
Kanagawa
240
2
2
4
5
1
1
2
1
1
1
6










Kochi
Kumamoto
Nagano
Nagasaki
OKINAWA
Osaka
Saitama
Tokyo
Yamaguchi
Yamanashi
KOREA
PHILIPPINES
THAILAND
2
1
1
3
173
3
2
17
6
6
5
6
3
LOCATION OF FATHERS

OKINAWA
45

MAINLAND JAPAN
23

UNITED STATES
182

SINGAPORE
1

EUROPE
2

KOREA
1

TOTAL:
254
CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTED
VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS PER MONTH
56 CASES
$24,879.30
Monthly Collections
CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTED
INVOLUNTARY PAYMENTS PER MONTH
INVOLUNTARY PAYMENTS
103 CASES
$81,059.90
MONTHLY COLLECTIONS
TOTAL CHILD SUPPORT
COLLECTED
VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY COLLECTIONS
TOTAL PAYMENTS PER MONTH
$105,938.20
TOTAL PAYMENTS PER YEAR
$1,271,258.40
ARREARAGES: $497,305.71
COOPERATING STATES


















ALASKA
ALABAMA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MARYLAND
MAINE
MICHIGAN
MISSOURI



















TOTAL
36
MONTANA
NORTH CAROLINA
NEVADA
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
PENNSYLVANIA
PUERTO RICO
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
OTHER ASSISTANCE
PROVIDED
(INTEGRATED INTO THE CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM)






LOCATE ABSENT FATHERS
(175)
PSYCHOLOGICAL/PSYCHIATRIC
COUNSELING
DNA COLLECTION
JOB TRAINING
SHELTER – SHORT AND LONG TERM
CASHING CHILD SUPPORT CHECKS
DNA TESTS RESULTS
POSITIVE RESULTS
73
NEGATIVE
4
PENDING
0
TOTAL CASES INVOLVED: 77
THANK YOU!
ON BEHALF OF THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN
Processing Amer-Asian Cases
Gary Caswell – USA, International
 Processing Amer-Asian cases in the U.S.
Today
 U.S Child Support Program Overview
 UIFSA 2008, Federal Regulations and IV-D
Policy
 2007 Convention Impact on the Recovery of
Child Support and Other Forms of Family
Maintenance
U.S. Child Support Program
 Social Security Act, Title IV-D
 OCSE www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css
 50 States + Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin
Islands & Washington D.C.
 Federal Funding - Law/Regulations/Policy
 15.1 Million Cases (FY 2014)
 28.2 Billion Dollars Collected (FY 2014)
 State Disbursement Unit (SDU) 1 per State
U.S. Interstate Cases
 1,037,644 Interstate Cases (FY 2014)
 Texas sent 44,280 , received 68,381
 Total number of collections sent to other
U.S. states: $1,572,574,644
 Texas sent $ 126,834,421 to other U.S. States
Reported International Cases -2014
U.S. – Foreign Countries: 4,232
Foreign Countries – U.S. : 9,207
Total Reported 2014:
13,439
$ from Foreign Countries to U.S. : 5.2 M
$ U.S. to Foreign Countries :
15.3 M
Total Reported 2013:
20.5 M
Legal Basis
 Multi-national Conventions (2007 only)
 Federal Declared Foreign Reciprocating
County
 State Level (Political Subdivision)
Arrangements
 Parallel Unilateral Policy Declarations
 Comity
Processing International Cases
 IV-D Services = PIQ-99-01 = “Anybody Anywhere “
 Establishment of Paternity and/or Child Support for
anybody/anywhere. Use OCSE Forms
 Enforcement of Foreign Order
 if Foreign Country meets definition of “State” FRC,
SRC, Sub Sim Law/Proc = Order is Registered
 Comity – Local law to recognize and enforce
 Physical Presence of Non-Resident not Required
 Telephonic Testimony
UIFSA 2001 Registration
 Transmittal Letter
 Two copies of order, incl. one certified copy
 Sworn Statement of Arrears by Creditor or Copy of






Payment Record Certified by Custodian of Record
Obligor Name, Location and Employer Information
Obligee Name and where to send payments
If multiple orders, copies of all for determination of
controlling order
Notice of Registration sent to Obligor
Contest must be filed within 20 days
Registration Confirmed or Vacated
UIFSA 2008
 http://uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Interstate%20F





amily%20Support%20Act%20Amendments%20%2820
08%29
In the Process of Being Enacted by All U.S. States
Law and Procedures for Processing International
Cases
Continuing Exclusive Jurisdiction - Controlling Order
Article 7 for Processing 2007 Convention Cases
Articles 1-6 for Processing Interstate and Other
International Cases
UIFSA “Foreign Country”
 § 102 (5) Country which:
 (A) Federally Declared Foreign Reciprocating
Country
 (B) Individual U.S. State Reciprocity Arrangement
 (C) Enacted a Law or Procedures Substantially
Similar to UIFSA Procedures
 (D) 2007 Convention is in Force with Respect to
the U.S.
** Japan, China, etc. are Not Foreign Countries!!!
Foreign Country Cases
 IV-D Support Enforcement Agency will work case for
free (Location, Establishment, Enforcement, Modify)
 Foreign Support Orders from FRCs, SRCs, Sub Stan
Similar Law/Procedure Countries Registered and
worked per Ch 1-6
 Convention Country Cases worked per Ch 7
 States may require individuals in Foreign Countries to
apply through own support agency
U.S. Implementing Legislation
 Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families
Act, 128 Stat. 1919; 43 USC 1305.
 Requires US States to Enact UIFSA 2008
 UIFSA 2008 Gives State IV-D Support Enforcement
Agencies Options of Only accepting applications from
Foreign Countries and Requiring Individuals in
Foreign Countries to apply through their own agency
 OCSE allows, but does not require IV-D agencies to
provide “anybody, anywhere” IV-D Services
UIFSA 2008 Ch.7 Registration
 Transmittal Letter
 Complete text of order [or abstract by issuing foreign






tribunal]
Record that order is enforceable in issuing country
If default order, a record attesting to due process re: notice &
opportunity to be heard
Records re: arrears, automatic adjustment of support, receipt
of free legal assistance in issuing country
Tribunal can vacate if manifestly incompatible with public
policy.
Notice of Registration – 30 days to contest (60 if Respondent
is NR)
Registered Order is Enforceable
Defenses to Enforcement
 Recognition and enforcement of order is manifestly
incompatible with public policy, including failure of
issuing tribunal to observe minimum standards of due
process;
 Issuing tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction consistent
with Section 201;
 Order is not enforceable in issuing country;
 If default order, there was a lack of due process re: notice &
opportunity to be heard
Duty to Establish Order
If Foreign Order cannot be recognized for:
 Lack of personal jurisdiction
 Procedural fraud
 A proceeding between same parties in other state
pending and filed first
 Default order violates due process
Then the tribunal may not dismiss the proceeding without
allowing a reasonable time for a party to request the
establishment of a new Convention support order.
New Policy Impact on U.S.
Negative
 Not allowing Anybody/Anywhere to be entitled to IV-D
agency assistance suddenly provides debtors a potential
U.S. sanctuary from supporting innocent children
 Denies equal protection under the law to U.S. citizens
working abroad
 Discriminates against U.S. Taxpayor Creditors abroad
whose taxes paid to the I.R.S. help fund the IV-D Program
Positive
 Allows States option to use the program fairly to Direct
Applicants and Direct Requestors
UIFSA 2007 Impact on U.S.
• Policy or Law?
• Shrinks the Universe of Children who benefit from the
law
• Applications from Creditors from “Non” Foreign
Countries may be refused by IV-D agency
• Applicants making Direct Requests to Establish or to
Recognize and Enforce a Convention Support Order
not entitled to IV-D assistance
 Allows states to force direct requestors to use
inefficient Central Authorities
2007 Convention Impact on U.S.
• Immediate Increase in Number of Countries Providing
Child Support services to U.S. creditors
• Focus on value of administrative cooperation and
accountability
• Recognition of how model forms and abstracts can
save costs of translation
• Recognition of need for expeditious and cost-effective
transfer of funds
Interesting Cases
1) Creditor in U.S./Debtor in Asian Country (no FRC,
SRC, or PUPD
2) A) Creditor in Non-FRC, SRC, PUPD Country /
Debtor in U.S. State “A” - Enforcement Denied (not a
“state”; AND violates Public Policy and Due Process)
B) LATER country becomes a FRC and tries to
register and enforce SAME ORDER in States “B”
AND then “C”!!!!!
謝謝
ありがとうございました
Thank You