Case Studies : Takara And Manami

Click here to view Takara and Manami's website

The case of Wood v Wood is one of a long series of similar cases where one parent disobeys the law of the jurisdiction in which the Children live and takes them to a foreign country (in this case Japan). The Wood case is a very good example of the problem.

The issue of which of Murray or Ayako Wood was to be the custodial parent was determined in February 2004 in a thoughtful, reasoned judgment of B.C. Supreme Court Justice, Sherman W. Hood. Mr. Justice Hood in his reasons for judgment said that, “[Mr. Wood] is a loving and caring father…and has the means and skills to meet their needs in every way…. On the other hand, the defendant [Ayako Wood]’s…injurious misconduct in relation to the children must come to an end.” The court therefore ordered that Mr. Murray Wood was to have sole custody and guardianship of the children, Takara [then 10 years] and Manami [then 7 years] Maniwa-Wood. Ayako Wood had generous access to the children when she chose to take it.

The children therefore continued to live in their Vancouver home with their father who had been, for most of their lives, the prime care-giver. Murray, a Richmond B.C. school teacher continued to cook and clothe and nurture and support his two children with a lot of help from his family and his new fiancé and with relatively little help from his former wife.

In late 2004 Ayako Wood asked to take the children to Japan to visit their ‘gravely ill’ maternal grandfather. Because the children were so upset by their grandfather’s reported illness, Murray agreed with Ayako to a consent order of the court whereby Ms Wood was to take the children on the 27th of November to her family’s home near Tokyo [and only there], give the children regular phone contact with Murray, bring them back to Vancouver by the 9th of December and not to attempt to contest in any other court the custody arrangements set by the BC Supreme Court. None of that happened. Instead they were taken to live permanently in Saitama, Japan.

Ayako Wood:
• refused to take the children, or let them go back, to Canada by December 9, 2004 - or ever
• refused any contact between the children and their father or anyone from his family
• later commenced proceedings in the Japanese court for sole custody for her.

Apart from the shocking and painful Saitama court appearance of the children, neither Murray nor any of his family has been allowed contact with Takara or Manami since that time.

Based on evidence since submitted to the Japanese Courts, Ayako Wood had carefully planned the abduction. Her child support cheques handed to Murray at the airport were almost immediately reported ‘lost’ and payment stopped. She had abandoned her apartment, her leased car in the airport parking lot and had shipped more that 350 kilograms of the children’s clothes, toys and personal effects to Japan. And after calling in sick, severed all communications with her employer - Air Canada. She vanished suddenly, taking the children with her.

This was all in direct violation of an order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia and in contravention of the Criminal Code of Canada. As a result, there is now a Canadian warrant for the arrest of Ayako Wood.

The Japanese courts, despite full translations of the Canadian judgements, the several appearances of Japanese counsel and of Murray and his father, and in the face of the compelling evidence that Ms Wood had defied a lawful court order, chose to determine that the children were not in fact ’detained’ in the first place since they ‘wanted’ to stay in Japan and that Ayako Wood was the more appropriate parent ifor the children. The way the intentions of these very young children were adduced was far from the type of professional psychological assessment employed by other jurisdictions in circumstances like these. Perhaps most appalling was that these interviews by the court official to determine the wishes of the children in relation to where they wanted to live were carried out six months after the children had been abducted to Japan. The children had been completely cut off from their Canadian family and home since leaving Vancouver 6 months earlier for what they believed would be a 10 day vacation.

Murray Wood lost in both the Saitama Family and District courts. Appeals were made up to and including the Supreme Court of Japan. In a remarkably short judgement by that court, the appeal was denied.

The Canadian government has made formal requests of the Japanese government to return the children to Canada. The Japanese government’s response has been that, since they are not signatory to the Hague Convention, they are not obliged to comply with the Canadian requests. The Canadian government unusually asked the Japanese government for extradition of Ayako Wood under the Canadian criminal warrant. This too, was refused.

In the meantime Murray Wood can’t talk to or see Takara and Manami. He caught a glimpse of them in court and was treated to a brief encounter in front of the court but was not allowed to be with them. The children were obviously petrified. The children are still not allowed any contact with their Canadian family.

International Rights of Children Society

Case Studies : Takara And Manami Click here to view Takara and Manami's website The case of Wood v Wood is one of a long series of similar cases where one parent disobeys the law of the jurisdiction in which the Children live and takes them to a foreign country (in this case Japan). The Wood case is a very good example of the problem. The issue of which of Murray or Ayako Wood was to be the custodial parent was determined in February 2004 in a thoughtful, reasoned judgment of B.C. Supreme Court Justice, Sherman W. Hood. Mr. Justice Hood in his reasons for judgment said that, “[Mr. Wood] is a loving and caring father…and has the means and skills to meet their needs in every way…. On the other hand, the defendant [Ayako Wood]’s…injurious misconduct in relation to the children must come to an end.” The court therefore ordered that Mr. Murray Wood was to have sole custody and guardianship of the children, Takara [then 10 years] and Manami [then 7 years] Maniwa-Wood. Ayako Wood had generous access to the children when she chose to take it. The children therefore continued to live in their Vancouver home with their father who had been, for most of their lives, the prime care-giver. Murray, a Richmond B.C. school teacher continued to cook and clothe and nurture and support his two children with a lot of help from his family and his new fiancé and with relatively little help from his former wife. In late 2004 Ayako Wood asked to take the children to Japan to visit their ‘gravely ill’ maternal grandfather. Because the children were so upset by their grandfather’s reported illness, Murray agreed with Ayako to a consent order of the court whereby Ms Wood was to take the children on the 27th of November to her family’s home near Tokyo [and only there], give the children regular phone contact with Murray, bring them back to Vancouver by the 9th of December and not to attempt to contest in any other court the custody arrangements set by the BC Supreme Court. None of that happened. Instead they were taken to live permanently in Saitama, Japan. Ayako Wood: • refused to take the children, or let them go back, to Canada by December 9, 2004 - or ever • refused any contact between the children and their father or anyone from his family • later commenced proceedings in the Japanese court for sole custody for her. Apart from the shocking and painful Saitama court appearance of the children, neither Murray nor any of his family has been allowed contact with Takara or Manami since that time. Based on evidence since submitted to the Japanese Courts, Ayako Wood had carefully planned the abduction. Her child support cheques handed to Murray at the airport were almost immediately reported ‘lost’ and payment stopped. She had abandoned her apartment, her leased car in the airport parking lot and had shipped more that 350 kilograms of the children’s clothes, toys and personal effects to Japan. And after calling in sick, severed all communications with her employer - Air Canada. She vanished suddenly, taking the children with her. This was all in direct violation of an order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia and in contravention of the Criminal Code of Canada. As a result, there is now a Canadian warrant for the arrest of Ayako Wood. The Japanese courts, despite full translations of the Canadian judgements, the several appearances of Japanese counsel and of Murray and his father, and in the face of the compelling evidence that Ms Wood had defied a lawful court order, chose to determine that the children were not in fact ’detained’ in the first place since they ‘wanted’ to stay in Japan and that Ayako Wood was the more appropriate parent ifor the children. The way the intentions of these very young children were adduced was far from the type of professional psychological assessment employed by other jurisdictions in circumstances like these. Perhaps most appalling was that these interviews by the court official to determine the wishes of the children in relation to where they wanted to live were carried out six months after the children had been abducted to Japan. The children had been completely cut off from their Canadian family and home since leaving Vancouver 6 months earlier for what they believed would be a 10 day vacation. Murray Wood lost in both the Saitama Family and District courts. Appeals were made up to and including the Supreme Court of Japan. In a remarkably short judgement by that court, the appeal was denied. The Canadian government has made formal requests of the Japanese government to return the children to Canada. The Japanese government’s response has been that, since they are not signatory to the Hague Convention, they are not obliged to comply with the Canadian requests. The Canadian government unusually asked the Japanese government for extradition of Ayako Wood under the Canadian criminal warrant. This too, was refused. In the meantime Murray Wood can’t talk to or see Takara and Manami. He caught a glimpse of them in court and was treated to a brief encounter in front of the court but was not allowed to be with them. The children were obviously petrified. The children are still not allowed any contact with their Canadian family.	Time Line Canadian Court Orders Japanese Court Orders Arrest Warrant Takara and Manami
home activities case studies resources contacts admin 2010© International Rights of Children Society Site maintained by www.clayrose.com