(2) The so-called “Baby Andrew” case Baby Andrew’s (hereinafter E) mother disappeared after giving birth to E at a hospital in Nagano prefecture in January 1991 without submitting a notification of birth to the municipality office. The hospital personnel had an impression that E’s mother was a Filipino based on the hospital record carrying information such as the mother’s family and given name and date of birth. E’s notification of birth was initially accepted with the “country of nationality: Philippines.” However, the Philippine embassy in Japan responded to an inquiry that “as long as the mother is missing, E’s Filipino nationality cannot be recognized.” E was subsequently registered as a foreigner whose nationality status was “stateless”. F and G, who adopted E and became his adoptive parents, filed a suit to confirm E’s Japanese nationality due to the fact that his “parents are unknown.” While the court of first instance affirmed E’s petition, the high court overturned the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court in this case stated the following in light of the object and purpose of Article 2(iii), which is to prevent statelessness: This requirement (‘both of the parents are unknown’ in Article 2(iii)) should be considered to be satisfied where, even if a particular person is highly likely to be the father or mother, it is not sufficient to definitively identify the father or mother. This is because, even if there is a high possibility that a person is the child’s father or mother, the nationality of the child cannot be determined on the basis of such a person’s nationality, and it is not until that person is definitively identified that the child’s nationality can be determined on the basis of his or her nationality. Furthermore, the court confirmed E’s nationality stating that even if the party disputing the child’s acquisition of a Japanese nationality proves the existence of “circumstances indicating the high probability that a specific person is the claimant’s father or mother,” as long as it is not sufficient to “definitively identify that the person is indeed the father or the mother of the claimant,” it cannot overturn the court’s determination that “both of the parents are unknown.” (3) The trends in practice after the Baby Andrew case It once appeared that this Supreme Court decision opened the path for children of unknown parents to acquire Japanese nationality. However, in practice, even after this case, the practice is to determine the mother’s nationality and other details based on a hearing from the persons concerned or the entry/exit record held by the Immigration 98