In the case of the abduction of Karl and Johann Echternach to Japan, Dr. Ruth Effinowicz—editor of the *Journal of Japanese Law* and a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for International Law—has produced an expert opinion that is scientifically imprecise and incomplete, and in which many facts regarding Japanese family law are missing.

​

As a reminder: Following the child abduction in 2017, all Japanese courts ruled in favor of the return of Karl and Johann Echternach pursuant to the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. In 2020, Judges Vera Krüger-Velthusen and Holger Wendtland denied the return of Karl and Johann Echternach—going so far as to grant sole custody to the abducting Japanese parent—yet they never succeeded in arranging visitation between Karl and Johann and either of their parents.

​

Regarding the situation: Under Japanese family law, visitation is not possible against the opposition of the parent holding custody. For Dr. Ruth Effinowicz, this would have been the correct answer to provide in her expert opinion. However, Dr. Ruth Effinowicz did not provide this—essentially correct—answer.

​

Dr. Ruth Effinowicz, the editor of the *Journal of Japanese Law*, does not wish for Karl and Johann to have personal contact with their German parent; instead, she proposes an arrangement whereby the German parent—from whom the children were abducted—writes a letter every month, in the hope that the custodial, abducting, and attachment-intolerant Japanese parent will pass it on to the children.

​

In reality, of course, this amounts to a complete exclusion from contact.

​

Regarding enforcement, Dr. Ruth Effinowicz refers to "Indirect Enforcement" in Japan. She compares this Indirect Enforcement to the German system of administrative fines used to enforce visitation rights. However, these two systems are not even remotely comparable. In Germany, administrative fines—levied at the behest of German family courts—are collected by court bailiffs in order to facilitate visitation. In Japan, the process functions in a diametrically different manner. Equating the two—as Dr. Ruth Effinowicz has done—is incorrect and incomplete; indeed, every reader must ask themselves whether Dr. Ruth Effinowicz possesses any actual knowledge of Japanese family law—or whether she does not.

​

Furthermore, it should be noted that in the case of Karl and Johann, "indirect enforcement" had already been attempted in Japan. In the case of Karl and Johann Echternach, it was already demonstrated that indirect enforcement is in no way comparable to the enforcement mechanisms typically available in Western nations. The hurdles that must be cleared for indirect enforcement to succeed—and subsequently be initiated by a Japanese court—are so high that, in practice, this mechanism finds no application within the realm of Japanese family law. As previously mentioned, the Lesser must once again ask himself: Is Dr. Ruth Effinowicz truly an expert in Japanese family law, or is she not?

​

The expert opinion prepared by Dr. Effinowicz for the 13th Civil Senate of the Higher Regional Court of Brandenburg is, therefore, in no way helpful to the abducted children, Karl and Johann. It fails to establish any contact arrangements. Unfortunately, theoretical legal constructs are of little use in family law.

​

The aid organization Japan Child Abduction, which advocates against child abductions to Japan, wishes to state here that Dr. Ruth Effinowicz is not qualified to lecture on Japanese family law or to produce expert reports on the subject.

​

In the view of the aid organization Japan Kindesentführung, Dr. Ruth Effinowicz is not an expert on Japanese family law!

​

We respectfully request that all courts and judges, in the future, submit any expert opinions authored by Dr. Ruth Effinowicz of the Max Planck Institute for International Law—specifically those pertaining to Japan—to *Japan Kindesentführung* for review, so that no more children, such as Karl and Johann Echternach, are forced to suffer.

​

​

​