Mr. Rebates

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

US newlywed couple spends 1st night in jail after bride tries to run over groom's ex-flame

Tue Mar 2, 7:53 PM

By The Associated Press

HYANNIS, Mass. - A newlywed couple spent their wedding night in separate jail cells after police said the bride tried to run over an old flame of the groom.

Police told the Cape Cod Times that 22-year-old Marissa Ann Putignano-Keene tried Monday to run over the other woman and the woman's son in a parking lot. The intended victim later told police that she had previously been in an intimate relationship with the groom.

Police say the couple married at Barnstable Town Hall and split a bottle of champagne afterward.

The bride was charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Her husband, 37-year-old Timothy Keene, was riding in the car with her and was charged with disorderly conduct.

Both were released Tuesday. It was unclear if either had hired an attorney.

Monday, March 1, 2010

Some big problems with PWDVA (Protection of women from domestic violence act) called DV (domestic violence) LAW in short.

Point 1:


Service providers in DV (Domestic Violence) LAW should be neutral persons for correct justice and good for society. Restricting service providers to women rights activist's organizations is unfair.

Judges and officials should be neutral. There should not be a force on them, to give one sided views, as part of the job requirement. To put a force by Law, that if you do not say one sided views, then after 3 years you will be removed from the list of service providers, and so will not get Govt. money, is wrong, this is to encourage, distorted picture and reports, by money.

Rule 11 (1), of 2006 Rules of DV Law should be changed. Condition for service providers i.e., "With the objective of protecting the rights and interests of women "should be removed. Social service neutral organizations should be service providers, and protection officers.

50% of service providers and protection officers should be men, and 50% women, men are

equal part of family. Protection officers should not be appointed by WCD

(Ministry of women and child development) but appointed by judiciary, to encourage impartiality.

The DV Law is drafted such that in almost all matrimonial disputes women will file DV LAW.

So more then 10,000 posts of service providers and protection officers will be created,

which is a big number. Also service providers and protection officers will be under pressure to

say one sided things to the press, the more one sided and biased or false things a protection

officer or service provider says the better chances of more Govt. money. For example a vocal

service provider person saying wrong one sided, biased things to press, will have more

chances of becoming a protection officer. This give untrue picture to society, and so service

providers condition to be an organization (Rule 11 (1), of 2006 Rules of DV Law)

"With the objective of protecting the rights and interests of women "should be removed.

In form VI of rules 2006 of DV LAW, point 4, "number of persons employed for providing such

service "should be changed to "number of persons with details of how they are involved " .

Social service organizations usually do not get high Govt. funding to employ person, persons

work without money for social service. So the word "employed "should be removed. Usually

only WCD (Ministry of women and child development) funded feminists organizations have

the money to "employ" persons of sufficient expertise. By this clause to focus on number of

employed person, feminists want that only WCD (Ministry of women and child development)

funded organizations should qualify as service providers. This is to increase posts for getting

which you have to say one sided things only, hence distorted and false things.

Also very Important, press has to now come to these posts practically reserved for persons

who are willing to say one sided things (should we call this lies ) for getting jobs, to get news.

As Law ensures that they only get paid to get complaints by women in gender difference of

opinion cases, in which DV will almost always be filed. This is a common trick being used by
radical feminists to control press world over.

Point 2:


A 3 member committee is made by WCD (Ministry of women and child development) to look

into the domestic violence LAW and other things; committee may consider Supreme Court

judgment (15/12/2006 S.R Batra V Tarun Batra.) about Domestic Violence LAW.

This is all women committee consisting or radical feminists. Please put a few representatives

of family saving organizations also part of the committee, or few neutral men.

Family Laws affect men and normal women also. Present maintenance Laws give extra

amount for renting a house to wife, this is correct Law. To through people out of their own

legally earned houses by Law is wrong. Husbands do not get any share in wife's ancestral

property; this point should also be noted.

Point 3:


Before there was 1 maintenance LAW, then in 2001 125CrPC was modified. So maintenance

cases are being filed by wife at 2 places, and try to get the maintenance judgment that is higher.

With DV LAW people are now fighting 3 maintenance cases; the wife can take the maintenance

amount highest in these. This is as expected adding to the multiple proceedings in which parties

may already be spending out their time, energy and resources. This is against basic common

sense, just because feminists LAW makers at WCD want to give more options to the wife.

This way she will get the highest maintenance from these 3 cases. This way, she has more

options to lie in one court, and if that is caught, she can always correct the lie caught in other

case, while keeping the lies not caught in 1st case. She now has 3 chances, apart from the

chances to put pressure of arrest to see in advance the man's proofs at state commission

for women, crime against women cells. Also this increases the probability to get a relative

or friends contact by wife's family, in any of these places, this can harm the husband, due to

barbaric, biased Laws against husbands.

Also DV Law was made to enable the women to get maintenance from other males also like

old father-in-law. We have come across case where a retired couple was asked to give

maintenance to daughter in Law, just 3 days after they received the notice of complaint,

3 days requirement is as per the DV LAW. Sometimes it can be difficult to even get the

copy of the tick mark complaint in 3 days for respondent.

Section 20(3) should be removed; this says "The magistrate shall have the power to order

an appropriate lump-sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and

circumstances of the case may be ". Forcing a man to pay a lump sum maintenance is wrong,

all maintenance Laws should clarify that lump-sum maintenance can be given only if the

respondent asks for the same, and both parties agree for that.


Point 4:

If a woman gives a complaint in writing telling about any instance in details, catching a lie in

this is sometimes possible. Many husbands thus are able to save themselves in courts from

false complaints, due to this. So feminists in DV Law have ensured that the women do not have

to tell the incident details, just filling a tick mark type form is sufficient(Form 1, rule 2006) , form

contains tick marks for whether emotional violence took happened, verbal violence happened etc.

, to further safeguard women doing false complaints and to encourage false complaints, in the

DV Law women do not have to sign on any complaint( even tick mark forms ! ) , this is

done so that she can later refuse and say I did not sign these tick mark columns also, the

person who signed misunderstood. DV Law then goes far to ensure that the person signing

false can not be legally punished for signing false complaints under DV LAW (e.g. section 35).

Protection officer or anyone else can sign, on her behalf. Also protection officer or someone

else just have to tick mark the form, without giving actual incidence details. Without any sign

by complainant women, all DV Law provisions can be invoked, e.g. it is sufficient to through

every man out of the costliest house, a women ever lived in (section 19), get monetary

compensation apart from maintenance for trouble faced mental, verbal, emotional etc.

types (section 22), or get maintenance from any man, (judgments for maintenance e.g.

from retired father-in-law, apart from husband or live in partners have already come),

(section 20) etc.. This is done to encourage misuse and false complaints, so the women

can later say I did not sign the tick mark form. Even for ex party orders she do not have to

sign affidavit in tick mark form 3, her parents can sign saying as per there understanding

the form filled is correct. This is done to ensure that after getting ex party orders in all barbaric

DV Law provisions, the women can later still say, my father or mother misunderstood, and

father or mother can say that this was based on his or her best understanding. In case this

form3 affidavit is signed, the magistrate is asked by LAW to pass orders under all sections

of DV Law, if the application prima facie discloses (i.e. says) that there is a chance of some

verbal violence happening. So judge is kind of made helpless in DV Law, as per LAW, judge

has to pass orders just on the basis of complaint. Just as dowry LAW (498a) made police

helpless, they have to arrest whether the case is false or true without investigation, and non

bailable, DV Law makes Judges helpless.

I think to hide this fact from the parliament members that the women or any of her relatives

do not have to sign at any place, elaborate arrangements have been made in the DV Law, e.g.

Rule 6(4) is deliberately added out of place to confuse the person reading the Law, to give an

impression that affidavit is required. This full rule 6 about the application to the magistrate is

deliberately silent about any sign on the application, and then to avoid the possibility of anyone

getting curious, if any sign by women is required, the Rule 6(4) suddenly mentions an affidavit.

Then very next Rule 7 again repeats this sentence. By this repetition a successful attempt was

deliberately made to hide the facts of LAW of no requirement of sign, and no specific details

required as forms are of tick marks type, from anyone reading the LAW a few times only , like

press or parliament members.


Point 5 :

Section 23 example: Asking Magistrate to pass ex party orders, if "an application prima facie

discloses � that there is likelihood that the respondent may commit an act of domestic

violence, he may grant an ex prate order on the basis of the affidavit "can be heavily misused.

For example, back from office, men of the joint house can find an order, under section19, that

they are not allowed to enter the house. As some lady in house have complained, that there

is a chance that verbal violence can take place by them towards her. Even if the order is not

ex parte, men can not do anything, to avoid being thrown out of house. Or under section 17 ,

( which can be followed by section 19 ) , a friend of husband can find a order for allowing the

wife of his friend, along with any of her friends or relatives, to enter his house, just because

10 years back he allowed them to live in his house, for some days. The number of days

required to invoke DV Law is not clarified in Law. Next the friend can get an order section 19,

not allowing him to enter his own house. Clearly these 2 provisions were made to entice women,

by saying you can live in the costliest house of husband's friend or relative, provided you

break your marriage. I think, to confuse the reader of LAW, related section 17 and 19 were

kept separate and section 18 was inserted between these sections.


Point 6:

When one reads the rule 14 i.e. , "procedure to be followed by Counselors ", a person

with commonsense will not call this a counseling procedure , it appears that this is

deliberately wrongly called as counseling to confuse people reading the LAW, this is done to

get another report in women favor, and to threaten the man to agree to whatever the women

wishes, and to force the man to give in writing by Law, that the allegation said by the women

whether true or false , were done by him and he will not do such things in future .

Rule 14(4): "The counselor shall conduct the counseling proceedings bearing in mind that

the counseling shall be in the nature of getting an assurance, that the incidence of domestic

violence shall not get repeated. "

14(5) " The respondent shall not be allowed to plead any counter justification for the alleged

act of domestic violence in counseling the fact that and any justification for the act of domestic

violence by the respondent is not allowed to be a part of the counseling proceeding should

be made known to the respondent, before the proceedings begin ".

If one person is barred by LAW procedure rule 14(5) to even say his side of story, against

basic human rights, how we call this counseling can be understood probably by WCD Law

makers only.

Rule 14(6): Asking respondent by LAW to give undertaking that he would refrain from

causing such domestic violence as complained by the aggrieved person. This can be

done before any so called counseling begins. This puts the cart before the horse. It

proceeds on the assumption that there is no reason to doubt that the respondent has

committed or is likely to commit domestic violence.

Repeating the same stuff in Rule 14(6) in Rule14 (3) within a few lines is not required,

why this was done deliberately, I think is to hide (from parliament, press etc.,) the important

points sandwiched between these two points etc., why this repetition is done is for WCD to say.

Rule 14(10) is made to make wishes or views of the women like a word of God for the counselor, and satisfying them is the only aim of counselor without giving any chance for the man to say his views, and for this all existing human rights or Laws should not be considered, Indian evidence act, or civil or criminal Laws not relevant, as per DV LAW. The Idea is to threaten the man through counselor, that sign whatever the women wishes or I will submit a negative report by rule 14(11). Once he signs compromise under this pressure of counselor, then rule14 (14) a women can very easily go back on the signed agreement, whereas LAW do not allow a man to go back. In such kind of biased setting against man, giving women to go back on agreement is not correct, or else man should also be given option to go back like women on signed compromise.


Point 7 :

3 days after receiving notice is too short a period. It is difficult even to find out what is the wish

of the women that the man has to grant, as per the form parts ticked under DV LAW. So a

copy of the complaint should compulsory be sent with the notice to respondent .( In DV Law

case the complaints copy can be tick mark form of the wishes of women and some ticked

allegations for cosmetic treatment of form) .


Point 8 :

Word aggrieved person in LAW should be replaced by Complainant as in other Laws. Who

know the women is doing this to get the costliest house or to get money extra then

maintenance etc, so let's not give a false impression in LAW by saying aggrieved women.


Point 9 :

Laws should be Gender neutral. Domestic violence Law in other countries is also gender



Point 10 :

This LAW is totally not required; there are already sufficient provisions in existing Laws.

Already extra amount for renting a house equal to a house the husband is living is granted by

Courts, so to through people including husband from his own house is wrong.

Also maintenance Law of 2001 i.e. 125 CrPC. was made for destitutes (changed in 2001),

so is very fast even at the cost of misuse. Within 6 months or 1 year interim maintenance

is fixed in majority of cases. Extra amount for renting a house is also given under this 125CrPC Law.


Point 11 :

Section 20: If case of crime appropriate punishment can be there, but to encourage

complaints by saying you will get money and compensation for alleged mental or emotional

trouble is wrong. This only leads to false cases of entrapments. People are also responsible

to keep themselves reasonably safe, enticement that you mix with me first, and then I will

ask money for alleged mental trouble is wrong. Further as per rule 2006 14(10) later, "due

regard has to be given to the wishes and sensibilities of the aggrieved person "and prohibits

man from saying his side of story by Law even verbally, only wishes and sensibilities of

women should not be considered, what is excepted practice in society, whether she

entrapped the man to get monitory gains, revenge etc. is to be seen. Also the biased

service providers and protection officers as per Law and other tick mark forms etc.

in rules 2006, makes money extraction by section 20 a very tempting business.

Virtually every DV complaint will ask for money for mental cruelty and money amount will go

higher based on the income of the relative of husband.


Point 12 :

Rule 2006, Section 13: To earn money for their agents WCD has looked like, allowed that any

legal practitioner who has appeared for the complainant in the case or any other suit or

proceedings connected can become the counselor under DV Law for the complaint, of

course the Lawyer of respondent can not become the DV Law counselor. Lawyer of the

complainant should also be not given powers of DV Law counselor of submitting report to the

judge etc.

Rule 13(2) (ii): "Any legal practitioner who has appeared for the respondent (or complainantshould be added) in the case or any other suit or proceedings connected therewith. "

Rule 13 (3): should be changed to 50% counselors should be man and 50% women. Men are

also a part of family.


Point 13 :

Section 27: The trick of radical feminists is to club all types of wishes of a woman, all types of

allegations under single Law procedure. This prevents different procedures as would be

appropriate for different types of allegations. So they can use worst case procedures, to

encourage misuse and false cases and entrapments. Small example E.g. in this jurisdiction,

jurisdiction should normally be the place where the incident happened (for which extra money

is being asked), but to trouble witnesses, women can go and temporarily reside at a distant

place (Say her parents place), come back. This wrong is being encouraged by this Law.

Point 14 :

DIR( Domestic Incident report ) is important in DV Law, as it is the first Incidence report like

FIR . The cases of ante-dating and ant-timing of DIR are quite possible . This gives easy ways

to feminists protection officers and servise providers to change the DIR, for lets say small

money . Even if one argues that this possibility of changing the complaint was not a delibrate

loophole left by the drafters of the Law. The potential of misuse of this is great . At least in

FIR the procedure of page numbered register is present, also FIR copy is to be sent to

magistrate, this reduces the chances of changing the FIR later.


Point 15 :

The Law , specially rules 2006, virtually makes it impossible for any interaction between

2 persons , to not to be a domestic violence, at least between family members, whether

male or female. Present culture etc. should also be seen, before making such rules.

Some points as told by Supreme Court Lawyer Mr. Tiwari and others: This law is encouraging

mushrooming tendency of allegation without any proofs. Separate section for penalty should

be added in case of complaint found false. Minimum 2 years punishment and 10,000 fines

should be there.

The Law should be implemented from the date of notification and on fresh cause of action,

not previous actions. For example previously it was OK for a husband to ask wife, if she is

interested in taking a break from her job for small kids and that in his opinion it is the better

thing to do, but such a statement can be made a crime as per the DV Law. So asking

husband to pay extra apart from maintenance for this statement of the past due to the

potential mental trouble due to the past statement is wrong. At the time the statement

was made it was not usually considered a crime as per Law.

Point 16 :

Presently what is happening is that women staying abroad are filing DV, and then they

never come to court. To prevent these types of cases, women should be present in court

on every date, to prove allegations.

Without clinching evidence or evidence cross-examinations, relief should not be granted.

Status of the respondent at the date of filing and judgment, should be considered,

sometimes due to litigations husbands have already lost jobs etc. , sending them to jail in

DV as they can not pay amounts as per past status is wrong .

Point 17 :

Domestic Violence LAW or House occupation LAW?

By Sandeep Bhartia 9899329991

Can Supreme Court save Lakhs of homes of old persons from radical feminists LAW maker of MINISTRY OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT? Domestic Violence LAW or House occupation LAW?

The domestic Violence Act is designed to allow the occupation of a house by an estranged woman.

It has nothing to do with domestic violence or for providing shelter to any victim of domestic violence.

Sections 17 and 19, allow an estranged wife to occupy any of the houses she had ever stayed in.

This law says the house can be of a friend or relative or rented. It do not matter how much time back

the wife stayed in the house.

Senior citizens save a lifetime to build their homes. Under this law, they can lose it to the daughter-in-law.

What is the effect of this law on ordinary citizens and senior citizens?

With more then 10,000 (Ten thousand) complaints of matrimonial discord in Delhi alone last year,

almost all of these complainants will now resort to this DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAW as a wedge to

extort concession in their matrimonial cases.

Case 2 :

*Mr. and Mrs. Mahender Singh, Haryana.

Himself not well, mild vain effected, due to cases.

Daughter-in-law asking house and maintenance in DV Law (Protection of women from Domestic Violence LAW, effective from Oct 2006).

*Marriage of son happened in 2000. Daughter-in-Laws father was district attorney

(Govt. Lawyer), later promoted to Joint director in prosecution. Son was lawyer.

Son and his wife were given a place to stay above the school, school had 5, 6

teachers and was running good. Daughter was MPhil, Bed, she was running the

school, daughter-in-law joined in the running. The daughter-in-Law and married

daughter had difference of opinion about school control. School owned 50% by

Son and 50% by daughter. Daughter-in-law called her brother, he threatened.

*Daughter-in-law went to her parents home, they file dowry (498a) complaint against

5 persons including daughter and her husband. And filed attempt to murder by

burning under 307 IPC.

*With great troubles they got anticipatory bail in session court, and later regular bail

in lower court. Lost lots of health and money.

Son filed for divorce and child custody.

*False case 307(attempt to murder by burning), 498a were acquittal happened not

even compromise in the cases.

*After all this, son�s wife decides to come back. She stayed for less then 2 months,

and left immediately when cancer was diagnosed to the son. Took grandson by


*For 2 years tried hard to save sons life, lots of money also spent. Daughter-in-law

never visited .

*As a last wish he wanted to meet his son, but they refused. We called them to bring

son to do last rites of father (2007), waited but they did not come.

On 12th Day of death, they came and started asking for House, money etc.

*Filed DV Law (Protection of women from domestic Violence Law, effective from

Oct 2006), asking for living in house (that can be followed by asking to remove men

from the house), 20,000 per month maintenance from retired father-in-law in teaching

job, etc. She herself is earning as teacher.

*After getting notice in DV LAW, within 3 days, on first date maintenance of Rs 1,000

asked to be given to daughter-in-law from father-in-law. They are paying this money.

*Goods were deposited at police station, list signed by daughter-in-laws father.

Still they filed again case for goods; leading to harassment .The document was

reported by SSP and IG police.

Questions : Should the new DV Law( Domestic violence LAw ) allow maintenance,

and money for mental trouble allegations, from a finantialy weaker party ( say old

persons ) to a financially stronger party ( working Daughter-in-law ) .

* If a old couple allowed the sons wife to live for say less then 2 months to stay in their house , should the Law force the old couple to let the daughter-in-law live in their house and through the old man out of the house, on roads .

* Should the new radical feminists Laws be made in such a way that distroys

money , health , and jobs of men and their families, by making them run around in courts againsts anti men, barbaric wrong Laws

Do you know?

As per Government records statistics, one in 6 persons in Delhi is likely to be named as accused in Dowry (498a) Law in Delhi, in some years. This is not an easy Law, arrest without investigation, non bailable. Almost any matrimonial dispute, Dowry (498a) Law is invoked on relatives.

One third of children in many countries are now being harmed by living in Fatherless families. These countries also had joint families some times back. Knowledgeable persons are saying soon half of Indian children will suffer by living in Fatherless society, unless someone stops highly funded radical feminists.

New Laws made or in proposal stage are made in such a way that a woman doing false allegations gets more money. This fills press with these false complaints. For example new Law from Oct 2006 (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, DV Law in short). In this a women gets money for the mental trouble she says she had faced, thus virtually all matrimonial disputes, now wife asks money from husbands friends or relatives , for mental trouble that she says, there is no limit on the amount she can ask, based on the earnings of the husbands relatives. What further encourages false complaints is that she do not have to sign at any place, so if caught lying with solid proofs, she can easily say the person signing on her behalf misunderstood etc. The Law clearly says that a man can not put his point of View in certain stages of the DV Law, for the allegation against him.

As per the DV Law (from Oct 2006), a wife or live in women can ask entry for living in any house she ever lived in the past (section 17), and then through all men out of the house (Section 19). Even if the house owner is husband�s friend or relative, he can be thrown out of his own house. Thankfully Supreme Court is saying (Batra Vs Batra Judgment) this will lead to choes.. is absurd, so the fight is going on in press etc.

New Law proposal to further control press, so that they get one sided views only, says if a complaint by a women is found false the same can not be told to press, but if found true can be told to press, and any money given to women for alleged act of sexual harassment at workplace can be told to press. (Sexual Harassment at Workplace Law proposal 2006, 2007, SH Law proposal in short). Complaints found false can not be told to press.

SH ( 2006, 2007) Law proposal, further says at some places no man can be allowed in some of the committees that decide if sexual harassment at workplace happened, if yes how much the man�s monthly salary should be given to the women. Even normal women can rarely be part of this committee, as she had to first prove that she is a women�s rights activist. The definition of women rights activists is not given.

The question one should ask the Law drafters of Ministry of women and child development is why not any man can be equal part of judges. Will lure of money result in entrapments and false complaints. Presently these complaints are taken seriously, with so many false complaints, will the true complaints also be seen with suspicion.

Also why do we think that radical feminists, who control Law drafting process, by using Ministry of women and child development as puppet, know better the Supreme Court of India, who has given detailed guidelines about how the Sexual harassment at Workplace Law should be in Vishaka Judgment?

Is giving 2 lakhs Rupees by Govt. to women who allege rape, going to increase entrapments for money. Especially with some feminists even demanding that rape has nothing to do with sex, and all sexual harassments etc. should be called Rape and treated under Rape Law.

Feminists Govt. jobs come with the condition that you have to work for women, have to be women rights activists. So if you dare to tell the truth, then you are likely to lose the Govt. Job for Example Orissa State commission for Women Chairperson, said men are being harassed by Dowry Law etc. , she has to lose the Job over this. To get more money for NGO or promotions, you have to say one sided things to press etc.

Contact about 100 helplines from our non funded NGOs, all over India. Attend weekly meetings in various cities of India to help families being destroyed by these wrong Laws.

For more see Ph : Sandeep 9971117829(President) , Niladari 9811052770 (Secratery)

Japan & International Child Abduction: An Update

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

The article below updates Japan’s attempt to handle the issue of international child abduction.

It highlights the fact that there is substantial misunderstanding within Japan concerning the entire issue of child custody and how the country’s accession to the Hague Convention would work.

There is a very long way to go until Japan returns abducted children.


Japan is struggling to address international child custody issues amid renewed pressure from the United States and other countries to join a convention to deal with the problems that arise when failed international marriages result in children wrongfully being taken to Japan by one parent.

What also makes Japan wary is facing possible criticism that it is harsh in its condemnation of North Korea for abducting Japanese in the past but lags behind in dealing with the so-called ''parental child abduction'' often conducted by its own citizens.

Japan is currently considering joining the convention which provides a procedure for the prompt return of such ''abducted'' children to their habitual country of residence and secures protection of rights of access to parents to their children.

Complaints are growing over cases in which a Japanese parent, often mothers, bring a child home without the consent of the other foreign parent, or regardless of custody determination in other countries, and denies the other parent access to the child.

The problem is not new. In 2006, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper raised the issue with then Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. Most recently, ambassadors of eight countries, including the United States, Britain, France and Australia, jointly submitted concerns, and Kurt Campbell, U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, also called on Japan to work on the issue during his visit to Tokyo earlier this month.

''The issue is only going to continue to grow by leaps and bounds if you will, simply because Japanese are marrying more and more with foreigners,'' Raymond Baca, consul general at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, said in an interview with Kyodo News.

''This is a multilateral issue. And it affects the world community,'' he also stressed, citing that a total of 81 countries have so far signed the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

As of Wednesday, the Japanese Foreign Ministry has received complaints on 77 cases from the United States, 37 cases each from Britain and Canada, and 35 cases from France, according to a ministry official dealing with the issue.

As part of efforts to address the issue, the ministry set up in December the Division for Issues Related to Child Custody, and has engaged in separate bilateral talks with the United States and France to deal with specific disputes.

The ministry has also held a briefing session for the embassies of countries interested in the issue and plans to hold a closed-door seminar in March in which experts from several countries are expected to gather for discussion on the issue, the official said.

''The issue needs to be considered with haste inside the Foreign Ministry and also inside the government,'' Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada said in his e-mail newsletter released Feb. 5.

But he said that acceding to the convention may ''take a little more time'' and also noted the need to take into consideration the differences of legal system between Japan and the United States, or Europe.

''In Japan, basically there is an idea of not letting authorities intervene in family affairs, except for child abuse cases. Therefore, there is no means for coercion. But in Europe and the United States, that may sound strange,'' he said.

There are also differences on parental rights, with Japan's law giving a single parent, often mothers, full custody of children in divorce, while the United States and Europe allow joint custody.

Japan's Civil Code also does not mention about the visitation rights for noncustodial parent and many Japanese mothers are known to refuse the divorced parent to meet the child.

''I understand our two nations' approaches to divorce and child custody are very different, but, as a result, American left behind parents have little or no access to their children once abducted to Japan,'' Campbell, the top U.S. diplomat for Asia, said in Tokyo.

''The U.S. government...strongly believes that children should grow up with access to both parents,'' he also said, noting that leaving the issue unresolved may raise concerns on the positive nature of U.S.-Japan relations.

Foreign Ministry Press Secretary Kazuo Kodama said that the ministry would ''carefully'' handle the issue so as not to impair the relations with its key security ally, shrugging off the possibility of the issue becoming a diplomatic flashpoint.

But some Foreign Ministry officials are concerned that the discussion starts to have a linkage with the issue of North Korea's abductions of Japanese nationals.

''When Japan calls for the resolution of (North Korea's) abductions, we may be asked, 'So what is your country doing (in the area of child abduction)?','' a senior ministry official said.

''And if we answer that it is a cultural issue, Japan may be regarded as a selfish country,'' the official said, responding on condition of anonymity.

Indicating Japan's awkward position, several diplomatic sources said that Campbell warned senior Japanese Foreign Ministry officials during his February visit to Japan that its failure to join the convention may have adverse effects on Washington's assistance to Tokyo in trying to resolve the North Korean abduction issue.

The Foreign Ministry official dealing with the child custody issue said Japan basically has no objection to the convention's idea of setting procedures to restore the status quo before the wrongful removal has taken place, without making any custody determination.

But still government officials appear uncertain on whether they can gain full understanding from the public at the moment on the issue of Japan's accession to the treaty.

A Justice Ministry official said that the government has to be able to respond to concerns especially in relation to cases when Japanese women flee from an abusive foreign husband.

While the convention has safeguards to prevent children to return to an abusive environment, the official at the civil affairs bureau said interpretations seem to vary among countries on whether the safeguards apply to cases when the abuse is seen only toward the mother and not to the child.

The Foreign Ministry official dealing with the issue also said that there may be a misunderstanding among the public that a child's return order issued in line with the convention means that the child would have to be there forever.

While saying that the historic change of government in Japan may serve as a momentum for Japan to improve the situation, the official also said, ''To tell the truth, we have yet to come up with a good solution.''