Father convicted of detaining and killing eldest son suspected of mental illness Yokohama District Court

The Yokohama District Court acquitted the father of detaining his 37-year-old eldest son, who was believed to have had a mental illness at a residence in Kawasaki City, and causing his death without receiving the necessary treatment.

The defendant, Naoki Yokoyama (71) of Aso-ku, Kawasaki City, was charged with manslaughter and confinement for allegedly confining his eldest son, Yuichiro (37), to his home for four months and causing his death without receiving the necessary medical treatment.

In his ruling on the 28th, Tsutomu Adachi, the chief judge of the Yokohama District Court, acquitted him of the crime of manslaughter by neglect of the person in charge of protection, saying, "It cannot be said that the father was aware that he was in a condition that required medical attention because the fact that he was watching the symptoms of his eldest son that led to his death cannot be recognized."

On the other hand, he said, "There is room for sympathy for the fact that he has been dealing with his eldest son for about 10 years, but he has had many opportunities to receive public support, and the act of confinement for a long time is malicious," and convicted of the crime of confinement and sentenced him to 3 years in prison and 5 years of probation.

After the sentencing, Chief Judge Adachi told the father, "The fact that the eldest son died does not change the gravity of the fact, and for the sake of the family left behind, I hope that you will think about why this unfortunate event happened, and for the sake of the family left behind, you will consult with others carefully in the future and proceed with things so that you will not make the same mistake again."

Background of the case and trial

In September, Yuichiro, the eldest son of defendant Naoki Yokoyama, was found dead in a residence in Aso-ku, Kawasaki City.

According to the prosecution's opening statement, the eldest son stopped going to college around May 9, and then dropped out of school and began to withdraw to his home.

Since 2004, he has been breaking down the walls of his home and using violence against his parents, and doctors have pointed out that he is suspected of having schizophrenia.

At this time, the father consulted with the district health department about taking him to the hospital, but the person in charge refused to visit his home for confirmation and did not contact him after that.

During the trial, the father explained, "I had a feeling that I didn't want him to come because the house was broken and rough, and I thought about what I would do if my eldest son went wild."

In May, the eldest son went out without clothes, so he started confinement.

At this time, the father consulted with the welfare office, but the welfare office did not respond to the subsequent phone calls, which did not lead to a visit to the hospital.

And the eldest son died four months after captivity.

When asked by his lawyer if he had consulted with the hospital, the father replied, "I thought that even if I went to the hospital, I would do it again if I got violent, or when the infection situation of the new coronavirus calmed down. I couldn't have predicted his death, but I feel sorry for him."

When asked by the prosecutor, "Do you think you should have relied more on relatives and public services?" the father said, "I regret that I should have been more flexible."

The prosecution asked for a sentence of six years in prison, saying, "Although he had many opportunities to consult with medical institutions, he was confined out of concern for the public and took minimal measures.

On the other hand, the defense side showed a stance of contesting the crime of manslaughter by abandoning the person in charge of protection, and asked for a suspended sentence, arguing that "the confinement was unavoidable so as not to disturb the neighbors, and I was taking care of myself hard while checking my health."

At the end of the hearing, the father said, "I regret that I should have taken better care of him."

Efforts to work from the government side

Efforts have also begun on the part of the government to connect people who are unable to take their family members to the hospital who are suspected of having a mental illness to medical care.

Tokorozawa City, Saitama Prefecture has commissioned 10 specialists, including psychiatrists and mental health workers, to visit the homes of people who are suspected of having mental illness but have not yet been examined, and those who have been in and out of the hospital repeatedly.

It is called "outreach" in English, which means "to reach out," and the purpose is to visit and examine the patient, explain the need for treatment, and get them to visit a medical institution.

The city accepts information from schools, public welfare committees, and medical institutions, and a team of experts visits if necessary, so that families do not have to deal with it alone.

Even if they refuse to visit, they continue to contact them by phone or letter, and try not to break off the relationship with their families.

Tokorozawa City has been promoting this initiative since 2015, and has supported 165 people so far, and as of September, it has continued to support 9 people.

Expert: "It's important to continue to help"

Masako Kageyama, a professor at Osaka University who is familiar with the problems of people with mental disorders and their families, explained the background of this case, "If the family is cornered because support does not enter the home, it may not be possible to make a calm decision, and they may think that they have no choice but to do something about it themselves. It happens that they supervise them in their own homes without taking them to the hospital so as not to disturb others."

In the past, the father had consulted with the public health center and the welfare office about his eldest son's symptoms, but he refused to allow the person in charge to visit his home, which did not lead to his eldest son being examined at the hospital.

Regarding this, Professor Kageyama said, "It is a common case that the family refuses to visit the person because it provokes the person even if the public health center requests a home visit Japan. I think the same thing will happen again if the current system is maintained, so I think the most important thing is to change the system."

In addition, he pointed out that "it is important to continue to provide support when the family tries to manage on their own and it does not work, such as connecting them to the next consultation, and it is important for a specialist who provides support to visit the patient's home as soon as possible to persuade the person to lead to treatment."