2019: Hinata’s biological mother died under suspicious circumstances after falling backward while holding him in her arms. Hinata, who was one year old at the time, was almost completely unharmed.
2019–2022: Because his biological father (the current holder of parental authority) abandoned his parental responsibilities, Hinata came to live under the care of his maternal grandparents. Although his father refused to take responsibility for raising him, his maternal grandparents still urged him, for Hinata’s sake, to at least meet with his son. As a result, weekly visits between Hinata and his father were arranged, lasting several hours each time. During these visits, however, the abuse by his father and his father’s partner escalated.
2022: Multiple bruises began appearing on Hinata’s body, and he became emotionally distressed whenever he had to visit his father. His maternal grandparents brought medical certificates documenting the bruises to the Yokohama Northern Child Guidance Center, but they were turned away after being told, “We cannot take action without video or audio evidence.” As they were leaving, they were also told, “Why don’t you wait until he suffers more serious injuries?”
2022: As Hinata grew older and developed the ability to express himself verbally, he asked his maternal grandparents for help. They took him into their care and stopped the visits with his father.
2022: Hinata was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Battered Child Syndrome. Medical certificates documenting these diagnoses exist.
2023: Hinata’s father filed a petition with the Yokohama District Court seeking the return of the child to the current holder of parental authority.
In the provisional proceedings, the Yokohama District Court ruled in favor of the maternal grandparents, finding that for the child’s welfare, Hinata should not be returned to the current holder of parental authority.
The father appealed, but the High Court upheld the original decision. Hinata was therefore permitted to continue living with his maternal grandparents.
Under the Japanese court system, the first-instance judgment in the main proceedings is generally issued after the provisional proceedings have concluded. The case was then appealed to the High Court and later to the Supreme Court.
2024: The maternal grandparents filed a petition with the Yokohama Family Court seeking the suspension of the current holder of parental authority.
During these proceedings, opposing counsel contacted witnesses for the maternal grandparents in an attempt to discourage their testimony. Opposing counsel also submitted a transcript containing statements that did not exist in the original audio recording.
Because of negligence and omissions by the maternal grandparents’ initial attorney, including the failure to submit some required documents, Judge Noriko Motegi became dissatisfied. Even after the attorney was replaced, a request for additional time to allow the new attorney to take over the case was denied, and an adverse decision was issued immediately afterward.
The appeal to the Tokyo High Court and the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court were also dismissed.
In addition, Family Court Investigator Mitsunaga Ogawa instructed only the father’s side to submit photographs and videos showing friendly interactions.
The issue is not whether there are scenes in which they appear to get along. The issue is whether abuse occurred.
2024: Despite the earlier provisional ruling by the Yokohama District Court that Hinata should not be returned to the current holder of parental authority for the child’s welfare, Judge Masaaki Tagooka of the Yokohama District Court reversed that outcome in the main proceedings and ordered that Hinata be returned to his father and his father’s partner, who were alleged to have abused him.
This ruling was issued even though it concerned a separate case before a different court involving different legal issues, which should have been examined independently.
The maternal grandparents appealed to the Tokyo High Court and later to the Supreme Court.
2025: The maternal grandparents filed another petition with the Yokohama Family Court seeking the suspension and termination of the current holder of parental authority as a factual retrial.
However, before substantive examination began, at the first hearing Judge Noriko Motegi (the same judge who handled the previous proceedings) stated, “There must be an end to litigation.”
The maternal grandparents filed a motion requesting that the judge recuse herself, but it was dismissed on the ground that they were merely expressing dissatisfaction with the judge. They therefore withdrew the petition itself.
During this period, Akiko Yamane, Section Chief of the Yokohama Northern Child Guidance Center, stated:
“I do not believe there was any abuse. I do not think abuse occurred.”
2025: The maternal grandparents filed a petition with the Kochi Family Court seeking the suspension and termination of the current holder of parental authority as a factual retrial.
Current Situation: Hinata’s biological father, a Chinese national, has consistently stated from the beginning of the proceedings that he intends to take Hinata outside Japan.
Once Hinata is removed from Japan, continuous monitoring of his safety and any effective rescue measures would become extremely difficult.
For this reason, we are asking for public scrutiny and support before any international removal takes place.
All of the above is supported by court records, medical certificates, audio recordings, and video evidence.
Hinata’s Testimony
Parts of Hinata’s Statements That Were Rejected
◆ Hinata first stated that his father’s partner slapped him 10 times, and later corrected himself, saying it was 13 times. A video recording of this statement was submitted to the court.
The court concluded that the testimony was not credible because the number of times was inconsistent.
Could any young child accurately remember the exact number of times they were hit?
It seems clear that Hinata was not trying to distinguish between 10 or 13 times—he was trying to express that he had been hit many times.
⸻
◆ Hinata was asked,
“Have you ever been hit?”
He answered,
“No.”
He was then asked,
“Have you ever been grabbed or pulled?”
He answered,
“Yes.”
At that time (when Hinata was three to four years old), he understood ordinary violence between children as “hitting,” while severe violence inflicted by frightening adults was something he described as “being grabbed” or “pulled.”
The court nevertheless concluded that the interviewer was leading the child by repeating the same question, and therefore the testimony was unreliable.
However, the interviewer was simply adapting the wording to match Hinata’s own vocabulary. The questions were clearly not identical.
⸻
◆ During a kindergarten event, Hinata saw a man who resembled his father. This triggered a flashback, and he said,
“Daddy squeezed my neck.”
The court dismissed this testimony, stating that the flashback occurred shortly after the court’s decision and therefore was not credible.
If timing was truly relevant, the court should have explained the relationship between the kindergarten event and the court decision, rather than merely asserting that the testimony lacked credibility.
⸻
◆ Hinata later revealed,
“Actually, I didn’t want to see (play with) Daddy.”
Immediately afterward, a video was recorded in which he was asked,
“Why didn’t you want to?”
“Why couldn’t you say you didn’t want to?”
Hinata answered,
“Because I was scared.”
“I endured it.”
On another day, he also said,
“I thought that if I said I didn’t want to go, I wouldn’t be allowed to return home (to the Yamamoto family).”
Even regarding this testimony, the court stated that it had been led by the interviewer and therefore could not be trusted.
It was also established that, immediately beforehand, the Yokohama Family Court investigator, Mr. Mitsunaga Ogawa, had told Hinata:
“If you play properly with Daddy, you’ll be able to go home (to the Yamamoto family).”
The interview was recorded immediately after Hinata himself first said, “I didn’t want to.” If that premise had been false, one would expect Hinata to have responded, “No, that’s not true,” or “Why are you asking me that?”
After finally returning to the Yamamoto family and feeling safe, Hinata openly expressed his true feelings. There appears to be no objective basis for rejecting those statements.
⸻
No Objective Basis Was Ever Presented for Rejecting Hinata’s Testimony
The court repeatedly stated that Hinata’s testimony was “not credible.”
However, it never presented any objective evidence or analysis explaining why.
In addition, we submitted numerous important materials, including documentary evidence, medical diagnoses, and treatment records.
Yet, despite these submissions, the court offered no substantive evaluation or verification of many of these materials.
Instead, they were simply left unaddressed.
In other words, the court rejected important evidence without adequately explaining the reasons for doing so.