Format Question

[Glenn]

I think this is a few sentences, but I want to be sure I'm understanding the formatting here.

昭和参拾年参月弐拾日親権を行う者がないため後見開始 同年拾弐月弐拾六日後見人某所某氏同籍某女就職につき 届出昭和参拾壱年壱月六日受附㊞

So, there's no punctuation, and there aren't many particles, but I think what's happening is this:

"20 March 1955: due to there being no one to carry out the parental obligations a certain person and his wife of a certain address became legal guardians 26 December 1955. Report received due to becoming employed 6 January 1956."

Alright, that hardly makes any sense. I'm not entirely sure when what happened and where 就職につき falls into this. They submitted the report due to becoming employed and it was received on 6 Jan 1956? Am I anywhere near this?

 

[epigene]

昭和参拾年参月弐拾日親権を行う者がないため後見開始 同年拾弐月弐拾六日後見人某所某氏同籍某女就職につき 届出昭和参拾壱年壱月六日受附㊞

Having no clue to the family/koseki relationships between the persons involved and to "how many persons" are involved here, my guess is:

"Legal guardianship started on 20 March 1955: due to there being no one to carry out the parental obligations. Legal guardian reported the employment of a certain person and his wife of the same address on 26 December 1955. Report received 6 January 1956."

Others might have a better idea.

 

[Glenn]

The legal guardians are two people, husband and wife, and there's only one kid involved.

This is frying my brain. Everytime I think I'm starting to get it, I forget what I just thought and can't even make as much sense out of it as I seemed to have been making just before that.

 

[Toritoribe]

My attempt

昭和参拾年参月弐拾日親権を行う者がないため後見開始 (後見を開始した人＝某所某氏が直後に出てくるため 省略されている)
同年拾弐月弐拾六日後見人某所某氏同籍某女就職につき 届出
昭和参拾壱年壱月六日受附

20 March 1955: due to there being no one to carry out the parental obligations, a certain person of a certain address became legal guardians (of a certain woman)
26 December 1955: he (= a certain person of a certain address) submitted the report due to a certain woman(= 被後見人) becoming employed
6 Jan 1956: report received

 

[Glenn]

The 被後見人 was 8 in 1955, so I'm pretty sure they didn't get a job. Well, at least it doesn't seem likely to me. Would it be the wife of the couple who got a job and because of that filed the report? Did she need a job to file the report? That's the really confusing part (well, for now; it's probably all equally confusing...).

 

[Toritoribe]

The 被後見人 was 8 in 1955

Wow! So, my attempt again

20 March 1955: due to there being no one to carry out the parental obligations, a certain person of a certain address and his wife became legal guardians
26 December 1955: they (a certain person of a certain address and his wife) submitted the report because they(or only hasband) became employed
6 Jan 1956: report received

To get a job was required to become legal guardians, so they submitted the report after being employed.

How about this?

 

[epigene]

Would it be the wife of the couple who got a job and because of that filed the report? Did she need a job to file the report?

I think those are the most likely possibilities. I don't know much about youshi-engumi, but probably the couple was required to prove they had a stable income.

 

[Glenn]

It's looking a lot better. I'm still having problems with the timeline, though. They officially became legal guardians before they submitted the paperwork? I must be misunderstanding that. And this is just my own speculation, but it seems wierd that neither of the two would have had a job. Maybe I'm thinking too much about it, but it sure would be nice to have more information. For a legal document this sure is lacking it.

I think those are the most likely possibilities. I don't know much about youshi-engumi, but probably the couple was required to prove they had a stable income.

They shouldn't both need jobs though, should they? Or am I being male-chauvanistic about this? It was 1955, though...

 

[epigene]

Would it be the wife of the couple who got a job and because of that filed the report? Did she need a job to file the report?

I think those are possibilities. I don't know much about youshi-engumi, but probably the couple was required to prove they had a stable income. (Oops! Toritoribe-san posted quicker!)

I'm wondering who got the job. A quick read led me to think the woman got the job, but in 1955?? Maybe the husband, as Toritoribe-san suggests? Or, both go the job?

 

[Glenn]

Yes, that's driving me crazy as well. Also, this is different than 養子縁組; it's just 後見. They're different according to Japanese law (according to Wikipedia:養子縁組 and Wikipedia: 後見人).

 

[Toritoribe]

I'm still having problems with the timeline, though. They officially became legal guardians before they submitted the paperwork?

後見 seems not to start after the report received.

民法第４編 親族 第５章 後見 第１節 後見の開始
第838条 後見は、次に掲げる場合に開始する。
一 未成年者に対して親権を行う者がないとき、又は親権を 行う者が管理権を有しないとき。

民法・第４編

I can't find the requirement regarding income to become a legal guardian.

A quick read led me to think the woman got the job

Yeah, that's my first impression, too. But 後見人 = "某所某氏 and 同籍某女" might be modifying 届出, thus, "as (probably only) the husband became employed, the legal guardians, a certain person of a certain address and his wife, submitted the report."

 

[Glenn]

I had that initial impression as well (that the woman had become employed). The use of 届出 throughout this document is confusing. I can't really tell if it's a noun or a 体言止め verb. It's a bit striking, as it seems like legal documents should be written with accuracy, so as to leave no doubt about what is (or was) going on.

I'll check out the Civil Law a bit later. It's about bed time for me now (about 23:15 here; I woke up at 2 this morning). Thanks to both of you. You've helped a lot, and I appreciate it. As a side note, I've asked the person who brought this to me for more background information to see if that might clear matters up a bit. I hope it does, for my sanity's sake....

 

[Glenn]

So, I got absolutely no help from said person. I have question about another sentence. Here's the sentence:

昭和弐拾九年拾月拾八日附許可の裁判による就籍親権を行うヴァンダイク届出同月弐拾伍日受附㊞

Now, is Van Dyke going to be carrying out the parental obligations due to having submitted the papers for the family register to be compiled? Or is this another case of さあな?

[Edit] By the way, this is the sentence (or perhaps "entry" would be a better word for what this is) that directly preceded the one above, i.e., 昭和参拾年参月弐拾日親権を行う者がないため後見開始 同年拾弐月弐拾六日後見人某所某氏同籍某女就職につき 届出昭和参拾壱年壱月六日受附㊞. So all together:

昭和参拾年参月弐拾日親権を行う者がないため後見開始 同年拾弐月弐拾六日後見人某所某氏同籍某女就職につき 届出昭和参拾壱年壱月六日受附㊞
昭和弐拾九年拾月拾八日附許可の裁判による就籍親権を行うヴァンダイク届出同月弐拾伍日受附㊞

That's for context's sake, although I'm not sure it will help all that much.

 

[Toritoribe]

My interpretation:

昭和29年10月18日の裁判で許可された（被後見人の）就 籍は、親権を行う（＝当時親権を行っていた）ヴァンダ イクが（日付不記載に）届け出て、同月25日に受け付け られた。

 

[Glenn]

I'm retarded. I put the two sentences in the wrong order. You may have caught that, but just to be sure, it's supposed to be this:

昭和弐拾九年拾月拾八日附許可の裁判による就籍親権を行うヴァンダイク届出同月弐拾伍日受附㊞

昭和参拾年参月弐拾日親権を行う者がないため後見開始 同年拾弐月弐拾六日後見人某所某氏同籍某女就職につき 届出昭和参拾壱年壱月六日受附㊞

 

[Toritoribe]

Whmmm, my previous interpretation still seems possible in that order. If the paper is regarding 被後見人, the subject of all the sentenses could be him/her.
That's exactly the problem, the vagueness of who the subject is...

 

[Glenn]

Alright, how does this look?

"25 October 1954: Received request for addition to the family register, which was permitted by the court on 18 October 1954, from Van Dyke, who is carrying out the parental obligations.

6 January 1956: Received report filed due to employment on 26 December 1955 that a certain person and wife of a certain address became legal guardians, due to there not being anyone to carry out the parental obligations on 20 March 1955."

It doesn't really do much for clarity, I suppose, but do you think it's closer? We still don't know who became employed, do we?

 

[Toritoribe]

Yeah, I suppose that that would be the most possible interpretation. As for the employee, a certain woman could be the one, after all. Although I wrote "某所某氏 and 同籍某女" might be modifying 届出 in my previous post, 及 would be generally needed in that case, i.e., the phrase should be 後見人某所某氏及同籍某女就職につき届出.

My wild guess again:
When the wife became employed, it was required that she was an officially registered legal guardian of the child. Then they submitted the report...