by Admin on September 24, 2024
Oregon and Thailand are both re-criminalizing previously decriminalized substances, but their approaches and motivations differ. In Oregon, the decision to re-criminalize possession of small amounts of hard drugs, including heroin, follows concerns over the fentanyl crisis and rising overdose rates. The 2020 decriminalization measure aimed to shift individuals toward treatment rather than jail, but delays in funding addiction services and challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic hindered its success. The new law reclassifies personal drug possession as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail, and allows counties to create deflection programs directing individuals toward treatment instead of criminal penalties. However, the lack of a statewide mandate has led to uneven implementation, with concerns over whether there are enough treatment services available to meet demand.
In Thailand, the government is reversing its 2022 cannabis legalization due to growing public health and safety concerns. Initially seen as an economic opportunity for rural farmers, legalization led to a surge in cannabis use, particularly among young people, raising alarms about its impact on mental health, road safety, and children’s development. A Thailand criminal lawyer might argue that the sudden reversal puts many cannabis entrepreneurs in a legal gray area. Political pressure to address drug problems, especially methamphetamine, has pushed lawmakers to propose a full ban on recreational cannabis use, though medical use will still be permitted. Businesses in the cannabis industry face uncertainty as details of the re-criminalization plan remain unclear. While public health concerns drive the policy change, the economic fallout for entrepreneurs and farmers is significant.
Both regions are navigating the balance between public health and legal enforcement. Oregon’s shift focuses on curbing overdoses while expanding treatment options, whereas Thailand’s reversal targets public safety and health risks related to rising cannabis use.
by Admin on September 24, 2024
Japan’s New Joint Custody Law
Japan recently passed a major revision to its civil code, marking the first significant change to custody rights in 80 years. By 2026, divorced parents in Japan will have the option of joint custody, aligning the nation with many others globally. Under this new law:
- Divorced parents can opt for either joint or single custody.
- In cases where domestic violence or abuse is suspected, one parent will retain sole custody.
- Joint custody requires parents to cooperate on major decisions concerning the child’s education, long-term medical treatment, and other important matters. Disputes that cannot be resolved may be referred to family court for a decision.
- On day-to-day activities, either parent can make decisions independently, but a family court decision is needed for critical disputes.
This shift addresses a growing demand from divorced fathers in Japan who wish to remain in their children’s lives. Previously, Japanese law almost exclusively awarded custody to one parent, usually the mother, effectively severing the father’s relationship with the child.
Thailand’s Child Custody System
In contrast, Thailand Child Custody Law has long recognized the rights of both parents in custody disputes. Thai law grants equal custody rights to both lawful parents unless a court order changes this arrangement, typically following divorce or separation. Key aspects of Thailand’s system include:
- Custody cases are decided by family courts, with the child’s best interest as the guiding principle.
- Thailand employs a unique system through the Observation and Protection Center (OPC), where social workers conduct preliminary evaluations of parents and children to provide the court with a detailed report.
- The OPC assessment plays a pivotal role in determining the custody arrangement that best serves the child’s welfare.
Thailand’s system focuses heavily on evaluating the parents’ suitability for custody, ensuring that decisions are made based on factual assessments by social workers and not solely on legal arguments presented in court.
Similarities
- Best Interests of the Child: Both Japan and Thailand prioritize the child’s best interests when deciding custody. In both countries, parental rights are secondary to the welfare and well-being of the child.
- Judicial Involvement: Both legal systems allow family courts to intervene when parents cannot reach an agreement. In Japan, unresolved disputes about joint custody decisions go to family court, while in Thailand, the court uses social worker evaluations to decide on custody.
- Balancing Parental Rights: Both countries are working towards systems that acknowledge both parents’ rights post-divorce. Japan’s move towards joint custody and Thailand’s approach of granting both parents equal custody reflect modern trends in shared parenting.
Differences
- Domestic Violence Considerations: While both countries acknowledge the seriousness of domestic violence, Japan’s new law explicitly prohibits joint custody when abuse is suspected, assigning sole custody to the other parent. In Thailand, however, the assessment of each parent’s fitness for custody, including any history of violence, is incorporated into the social worker’s evaluation report, but joint custody could still be granted if deemed in the child’s best interest.
- Custody Framework: The most significant difference lies in the fundamental approach to custody. Japan is transitioning from a system where only one parent (usually the mother) was granted custody, toward a new system that allows for shared custody. Thailand, on the other hand, has long had a framework that permits equal custody for both parents, subject to court review.
- Social Worker Involvement: Thailand’s use of the Observation and Protection Center (OPC) to provide social worker evaluations introduces an additional layer of investigation and expert assessment into custody disputes. Japan’s system, even with the revisions, leaves more decisions in the hands of parents and the courts rather than relying on external evaluations.
Conclusion
Both Japan and Thailand have evolved their family law systems to reflect modern societal changes and the importance of both parents in a child’s life. While Japan’s recent revision to allow joint custody marks a significant departure from its previous practice of sole custody, it still includes protections for victims of domestic violence. Thailand, with its more established system of equal custody rights and detailed social worker evaluations, presents a more structured framework for deciding custody cases.
As both countries continue to adapt their legal frameworks, the primary focus remains on safeguarding the welfare of children while balancing the rights of both parents in complex family situations.
