[English/日本語]

Request for Rectification of Support of Confinement Under the Logic of
Custody Rights in Japan
Rather than protecting the state of confinement brought about by one parent
(principally the mother), the right of the child to have the freedom to
choose and change his or her residence (Article 22 of the Constitution of
Japan) should be protected.
The current custody right has become the right to protect a state of
confinement. In Japan, if the female parent abducts/confines her child, she
is regarded as having custody from the moment of abduction/confinement, and
she is treated as having a strong right to custody.
All rights concerning children become able to be exercised by the female
parent (mother), and the male parent (father) does not have parental rights,
but only the obligation to pay money. It is also the freedom of the mother
not to let the child meet the other parent. The right to meet the child,
etc. has no practical effect.
Public institutions openly state the thinking that if confinement occurs,
the right of custody is formed (even if the child is unwilling), and the
confining parent may continue confinement. It similar to saying that if you
rape a person, it gives you the right to rape, and you can continue to rape
in the future.
In some cases, if a male parent continues custody for a long period of time,
priority may be given to the male parent, but concerning the state of
custody also, if the female parent starts confinement, she is protected, and
if the male parent starts it, there is a notable tendency for that right to
be obstructed or eliminated. Thus, it can be said that this is a system that
prioritizes the female parent. Moreover, regardless of which is prioritized,
the problem is the present situation in which the confiner's prioritized
right to confinement continues to prevail over child's rights (freedom).
Children placed in a situation in which their right to be free from being
held in bondage of any kind (Article 18 of the Constitution of Japan) is not
guaranteed, and there is no end to the unhappiness created by child abuse.
Even though women are favored to acquire custody of children, they are
unable to stop the abuse of their grandchildren, eventually making many
people unhappy.
We should abolish this kind of system, which has created a hotbed of child
abuse, and give priority to the right of self-determination of children
(freedom to choose and change residence) rather than prioritizing the right
of confiners to confine children.
The Constitution of Japan ensures the right to have the freedom to choose
and change his or her residence, and this right can be directly exercised
without the need for legislation. The legal system, government, police, and
public facilities (such as nursery schools) should be aware of this and
should not continue to justify confinement based on the concept of custody.

監護権という理屈を用いた監禁擁護の是正要求
一方親(主に女親)による監禁状態を護るよりも、子供の居住・移転の自由(憲法22条)を護るべきである。
現在の監護権は監禁状態を護る権利と化しています。女親が子供を拉致・監禁してしまえば拉致・監禁した瞬間から監護しているとされ、監護権という強い権利が生じたと扱われるのが日本の現状である。
子供に関する権利は全て女親(母親)が行使できるようになり、男親(父親)の親権は権利ではなくお金を出す義務だけになります。子供に全く会わせないのも女親の自由です。面会交流などの権利は実効性がなく絵に描いた餅です。
監禁したら監護権が発生して(子供が嫌がっていたとしても)監禁し続けられるという理屈を公的機関が堂々と述べます。これはレイプしたらレイプ権が発生してこの先もレイプし続けられると言っているようなものである。
男親が監護を長期間継続すれば男親が優先することもあるが、監護状態も、女親が始めれば保護し、男親が始めれば妨害・排除する傾向が顕著なので、結局女親を優先する制度と言える。また、どちらが優先するとしても、監禁者の監禁し続ける権利と化した監護権が、子供の人権(自由権)よりも優先される現状が問題である。
子供には奴隷的拘束からの自由(憲法18条)も実質的には保障されていない状況にあり、児童虐待による不幸が後を絶たない。
女性にとっても、子供の親権取得には有利でも、孫の虐待を止められなくなり、多くの人を結局は不幸にする。
児童虐待の温床となっているこのような運用を廃止し、監禁者の監禁し続ける権利よりも、子供の自己決定権(居住・移転の自由)を優先すべきである。
憲法上の居住・移転の自由は自由権であり、本来具体化立法がなくても直接行使できるものである。司法・行政・警察・公共施設(保育園など)はそのことを自覚すべきであり、監護権という概念を用いて監禁を正当化する運用をやめるべきである。