“I Did Naughty Things with My Teacher”: The “Reason” Behind a Child Welfare Office Employee’s Non-Consensual Sex with a Girl in Their Care, Revealed in Court

“A child in the facility engaged in sexual activity with a staff member”

“I was threatened.”

The 29-year-old former child welfare center staff member, who engaged in sexual acts with a girl in his care, repeated these words numerous times during his trial. How could a staff member tasked with protecting children claim he was “threatened”? What exactly happened?—

Former child welfare center employee Ryuichi Shimizu (29) was charged with non-consensual sexual intercourse and other offenses against Ms. A (under 16 at the time), whom he was responsible for protecting. On June 24, ’26, he was sentenced by the Saitama District Court to three years and ten months in prison (the prosecution had sought five years).As of July 9, Shimizu had not filed an appeal, and the sentence has become final.

Shimizu was arrested by the Saitama Prefectural Police on February 19, ’26, on suspicion of non-consensual sexual intercourse and other charges.

The incident came to light after the Child Guidance Center where he worked reported that “a child in their care had engaged in sexual acts with a staff member.” It is alleged that last December, Shimizu entered Ms. A’s room on three separate occasions and engaged in sexual acts with her. Although he denied the allegations during the child welfare center’s interview, stating, “I didn’t do it, ” he admitted to the charges after his arrest, saying, “There is no mistake.” Shimizu was indicted on March 11.

In response to the situation in which a child welfare center staff member allegedly engaged in sexual acts with a girl under the center’s care, Saitama Prefecture has also taken action.

“On March 24, Saitama Prefecture announced that it had dismissed Shimizu from his position through disciplinary action. In response to this incident, three male staff members—including the director of the Child Guidance Center, who was Shimizu’s superior—each received a reprimand.The prefecture stated, ‘We will thoroughly enforce discipline to prevent any scandals that could undermine public trust,’” said a social affairs reporter for a national newspaper.

Shimizu, who had been working at this Child Guidance Center since October ’24, was in a position to provide guidance on Ms. A’s daily life. It is reported that Ms. A had developed feelings for Shimizu.According to the indictment and opening statements, the incident came to light after another staff member overheard a conversation between A and a friend. In a statement read aloud by the prosecutor, this staff member testified as follows:

“This morning, during a conversation between A and another child, there was an exchange like this: ‘Do you still like Mr. Shimizu?’ ‘Yeah, I did naughty things with Mr. Shimizu. We took pictures together.’ That child then asked me, ‘What kind of person is [Defendant Shimizu]?’”

She threw her arms around me

What happened on the day of the incident?

According to what Defendant Shimizu stated at the trial, on November 29, ’25—the day he first entered Ms. A’s room—there was an incident involving graffiti found on a wall at the Child Welfare Center. It was clearly drawn by four or five people, but Ms. A was the only one reprimanded that day.Defendant Shimizu reportedly felt sympathy for Ms. A. Then, around 9:00 p.m. that night, Ms. A came to see Defendant Shimizu, who was on the night shift, and asked him, “Please come to my room and listen to me.”

“With a desperate look on her face, she said, ‘I can’t sleep, so please listen to me.’ Since there had also been the incident with the graffiti earlier that day, I ended up going into her room to listen to her. That night, we had a deep conversation about the graffiti, Ms. A’s daily life, and her dreams for the future.”

However, at this child welfare center, male staff members are not allowed to enter the rooms of female children after bedtime. Even in emergencies, there was a rule that the door must be left open and that at least two people must enter together. At this point, Defendant Shimizu had already broken the rules.

On December 3, A came to see Defendant Shimizu again while he was on the night shift.

“She said, ‘I want you to listen to me,’ so I replied, ‘But we’re already done talking, aren’t we?’ Then she said, ‘If you don’t do what I say, I’ll go around telling everyone (about the last time you entered my room),’ so I ended up listening to her. I thought that if it came out and she said I ‘made a pass at her,’ I’d be the one in the wrong, so I got scared,”

Then, when Defendant Shimizu entered Ms. A’s room, she reportedly threw her arms around him.

“When I said, ‘Please stop that,’ she replied, ‘Then I’ll go ahead and tell everyone.’ I thought she might be joking, but if she’d started shouting right there, I’d definitely be the one at fault, so I had no choice but to do as she said.”

“That’s when my sexual desire took over, and we ended up engaging in sexual activity, ” explained Defendant Shimizu.

He testified, his voice trembling—perhaps from nervousness—that he had complied in the same way the third time as well. At that time, Defendant Shimizu took a photo of Ms. A. Regarding the reason for this, he stated the following.

“Are you trying to say it’s the other person’s fault?”

“I took a photo of Ms. A’s face, but I thought that if I took a photo of her looking happy, it would serve as evidence that I didn’t engage in sexual acts with her against her will.”

However, when the prosecutor asked , “Given Ms. A’s age and the relationship between a child welfare agency staff member and a child under their care, didn’t you think it would be wrong even if she had consented?” he replied, “I did think so.”

He stated that he deleted the photos of A later, after calming down, because “I realized they wouldn’t serve as an excuse if anyone else saw them.”

Although Defendant Shimizu repeatedly stated during the trial, as mentioned at the beginning, that “Ms. A threatened me” and “I was blackmailed,” he answered “No” when the prosecutor asked, “From the way you’re speaking, are you trying to say that the other party was at fault?”

However, by taking a photo of Ms. A’s face as evidence that “he did not force her into sexual acts” and claiming that he “merely responded to her invitation, ” might he not have thought that this would at least slightly reduce his punishment?

Defendant Shimizu was fully aware not only of Ms. A’s age but also of her family circumstances, which had led to her being placed under the protection of child welfare services. Given that, committing this crime means he cannot be blamed for being accused of abandoning his responsibilities as a child welfare services employee.

The written testimony of a Child Guidance Center staff member, read aloud by the prosecutor, expressed anger toward Defendant Shimizu as follows:

“(Such a crime) is a betrayal of the student, and we have no choice but to call it an abuse of power. Since a person in a position to supervise a child in protective care has committed an act of abuse, we want him to fully atone for his crime.”

After the prosecution sought a “five-year prison sentence, ” Defendant Shimizu gazed at his relatives sitting in the gallery, his face contorted and looking as if he were about to cry.

However, at the sentencing hearing, after Presiding Judge Inoshita handed down a sentence of “three years and ten months’ imprisonment”and stated , “You will be released into society in the not-too-distant future. When that time comes, please start your life anew, taking this experience as a lesson,” the defendant left the courtroom without changing his expression.

Had he already steeled himself for a prison sentence? It was impossible to read any emotion from his expression.