Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 45
limited personnel, were quite effective in helping former Aum Shinrikyo and other cult
members recover.
In response to this, the Unification Church, alleging that the families of believers and
Christian ministers formed a conspiracy to kidnap its believers, confine them, and force
them to quit the Church, filed a criminal complaint and published a book criticizing the said
―conspiracy.‖ The police, however, declined the Church‘s complaint saying that the issue in
question is a family matter.
The Unification Church persuaded their followers to file a civil action against a minister who
counseled the believers and their parents since January 1999. In these cases, the
Unification Church‘s followers are demanding that the parents and the minister cease
pressuring the said believer to quit the Church, and that compensation for damages is paid.
Scientology cooperated with the Unification Church (the Moonies) in one of these lawsuits.
Additionally, a female member of the Jehovah Witness organization sued a Christian
minister for damages in January 1999.
The following issues are being disputed with respect to these cases: First, did an act occur
that is recognized as genuine kidnapping and confinement? Second, what admissible actions
can parents or guardians of a child take when they learn that their child has joined and is
actively participating in an organization that conducts antisocial activities? Third, how should
the participatory role of a minister be concretely defined?
In the future, counseling former and possibly present members of religious organizations
will be a matter of serious concern in Japan.
Problems Within the Family
There have been numerous cases in which a spouse has filed for divorce because the other
spouse became deeply involved in a religion and in doing so neglected his or her family life.
In reviewing court judgments on this subject, it is apparent that in many of these cases one
of the spouses had joined the Jehovah Witness organization or Soka Gakkai. Divorce was
recognized in cases where it was determined that a spouse‘s religious involvement
obstructed his or her obligation to cooperate as a spouse. However, divorce was not
recognized in cases where one spouse refused to accept the religion of the other spouse and
where the courts could not find that the basic life of the spouse had been disturbed due only
to a difference of religious beliefs between the two spouses.
In such cases when divorce is granted, subsequent child custody cases have arisen. In some
cases, a parent who becomes an Aum Shinrikyo, Life Space, or Yamagishi-Kai follower takes
his or her child to live at that organization‘s commune. In response to this, the parent who
is not a member of the religious organization or the grandmother/grandfather of the child in
question takes habeas corpus actions requesting a change in child custody rights with a
view to returning the child to normal society from the said commune. Such requests are
usually recognized in cases where it is clear that the communal life style within a religious
organization‘s facility is detrimental to a child‘s welfare and in cases where a child over the
age of ten years expresses his or her wish to leave the said facility.
Another problem concerns the wish of children and parents of religious organization
believers to protect the estate belonging to that believer. Often, believers donate their
property and assets, one after another, to a religious organization in line with its
propaganda. This has a great financial impact on the believer‘s family. Therefore, family
members seeking to protect the estate have sought legal advice.
In such cases the procedure on Declaration of Quasi-Incompetence may be employed. By
this procedure, when an adult is judged to be incapable of appropriately managing his/her
estate, the court appoints a conservator/guardian to oversee the management of that
limited personnel, were quite effective in helping former Aum Shinrikyo and other cult
members recover.
In response to this, the Unification Church, alleging that the families of believers and
Christian ministers formed a conspiracy to kidnap its believers, confine them, and force
them to quit the Church, filed a criminal complaint and published a book criticizing the said
―conspiracy.‖ The police, however, declined the Church‘s complaint saying that the issue in
question is a family matter.
The Unification Church persuaded their followers to file a civil action against a minister who
counseled the believers and their parents since January 1999. In these cases, the
Unification Church‘s followers are demanding that the parents and the minister cease
pressuring the said believer to quit the Church, and that compensation for damages is paid.
Scientology cooperated with the Unification Church (the Moonies) in one of these lawsuits.
Additionally, a female member of the Jehovah Witness organization sued a Christian
minister for damages in January 1999.
The following issues are being disputed with respect to these cases: First, did an act occur
that is recognized as genuine kidnapping and confinement? Second, what admissible actions
can parents or guardians of a child take when they learn that their child has joined and is
actively participating in an organization that conducts antisocial activities? Third, how should
the participatory role of a minister be concretely defined?
In the future, counseling former and possibly present members of religious organizations
will be a matter of serious concern in Japan.
Problems Within the Family
There have been numerous cases in which a spouse has filed for divorce because the other
spouse became deeply involved in a religion and in doing so neglected his or her family life.
In reviewing court judgments on this subject, it is apparent that in many of these cases one
of the spouses had joined the Jehovah Witness organization or Soka Gakkai. Divorce was
recognized in cases where it was determined that a spouse‘s religious involvement
obstructed his or her obligation to cooperate as a spouse. However, divorce was not
recognized in cases where one spouse refused to accept the religion of the other spouse and
where the courts could not find that the basic life of the spouse had been disturbed due only
to a difference of religious beliefs between the two spouses.
In such cases when divorce is granted, subsequent child custody cases have arisen. In some
cases, a parent who becomes an Aum Shinrikyo, Life Space, or Yamagishi-Kai follower takes
his or her child to live at that organization‘s commune. In response to this, the parent who
is not a member of the religious organization or the grandmother/grandfather of the child in
question takes habeas corpus actions requesting a change in child custody rights with a
view to returning the child to normal society from the said commune. Such requests are
usually recognized in cases where it is clear that the communal life style within a religious
organization‘s facility is detrimental to a child‘s welfare and in cases where a child over the
age of ten years expresses his or her wish to leave the said facility.
Another problem concerns the wish of children and parents of religious organization
believers to protect the estate belonging to that believer. Often, believers donate their
property and assets, one after another, to a religious organization in line with its
propaganda. This has a great financial impact on the believer‘s family. Therefore, family
members seeking to protect the estate have sought legal advice.
In such cases the procedure on Declaration of Quasi-Incompetence may be employed. By
this procedure, when an adult is judged to be incapable of appropriately managing his/her
estate, the court appoints a conservator/guardian to oversee the management of that
