Case Update (12 Oct 2023): Hiroki v. Hiroki; totality of the circumstances indicate children were habitually resident in U.S., not Japan
The parties are the parents of several young children (and the Defendant Mother also has older children from her first marriage). They met in Ohio while students. Defendant, for all relevant points in time, owned a house in Ashland, Ohio and held a job in Ohio. After starting their relationship, the Plaintiff moved from Ohio for periods, including to Boston for another degree, to Spain for another degree, back to Boston for a fellowship, to Japan for work, and to Ohio for a job. Ultimately, the Plaintiff moved back to Japan in March 2021. Prior to returning to Japan, Plaintiff became a naturalized U.S. citizen. The parties also began discussing the formation of a business together, which they intended to have a virtual component “which would allow Defendant to leave Japan for part of the year.” The couple suffered some financial problems, and when planning travel to Japan, there was often a lot of discussion, at times, one-way tickets as a cheaper option, and uncertain dates. The parties also discussed various options for their family, including whether they should live part of the year in Japan and part in Ohio. Regardless, when the Defendant and children traveled to Japan in 2021, “neither party understood, at least initially” that the travel would be for a permanent relocation. In fact, Defendant was adamant that she could not, and did not wish to, permanently relocate to Japan.
While in Japan, which lasted about 3 months, the Defendant did secure a Japanese drivers license, and they did place the children in school, which both parties said was more for their convenience in working on their business venture than for educational purposes. Defendant also signed paperwork at City Hall to establish her permanent residence in Japan, but she could not read Japanese, and apparently the Plaintiff told her that she was required to sign the documents to receive a salary from his father’s company.
Further, the children did not acclimate. Setting aside it was only 3 months, the children could not speak Japanese, constantly called their maternal relatives in Ohio for comfort and support, and consistently expressed their desire to return “home” (to Ohio). This, coupled, with the Plaintiff’s physical and emotional aggression against the Defendant and Plaintiff, lead the judge to believe the family had not acclimated to Japan. Defendant asserted herself and her desire to return to Ohio, and the Plaintiff engaged her in a family discussion, and even began taking one of the children with him everywhere, in an attempt to thwart her leaving. She did manage to leave with the children, however.
The court ultimately concluded that the vast majority of the evidence presented demonstrates that the children’s habitual residence was the United States, and not Japan. Therefore, it dismissed the Plaintiff’s request to return the children to Japan.
