Child Abduction Issue Explodes

[Bucky]

A new blog by Christopher Savoie's attorney:

Chris and Noriko raised Isaac and Rebecca as husband and wife until 2007, in Japan, at which time they decided to separate. Chris needed to move back to the States for work and Noriko followed him with the children, knowing that they would not live together.

Before she left Japan, Noriko spoke at length to a social worker in Tennessee about the divorce law in Tennessee and the financial arrangements that she could expect. They discussed the fact that Noriko planned to come with the children to live in the United States. Noriko stated that she preferred to get the divorce in America and she had many questions about the divorce process. She stated that she would remain in the United States so that both she and Chris could participate in raising Isaac and Rebecca.

Noriko promptly hired a divorce lawyer in Tennessee and divorce proceedings were promptly commenced there.

This version of the story seems to indicate that she know full well what she was getting into.

[wuchan]

A new blog by Christopher Savoie's attorney:

This version of the story seems to indicate that she know full well what she was getting into.

she knew that she could get more money in the states. I am starting to think that she had this all planned out.

[Mulboyne]

News Channel 5: Reporter's Notebook - 'Why Don't You Tell The Other Side?'

"Why don't you tell the other side?" That's been a repeated refrain that's appeared in comments posted in response to NewsChannel 5's continuing coverage of the international child-custody controversy involving Christopher Savoie. The Franklin, Tenn., businessman became big news when he was arrested in Japan for allegedly abducting the two children who were abducted from him here in Tennessee by his ex-wife, Noriko Savoie...Adding fuel to that debate was a recent Associated Press story, published in The Tennessean. It began this way: "A friend says Noriko Savoie felt trapped -- she was a Japanese citizen new to the U.S. whose American husband had just served her divorce papers." So why didn't we report how she had been tricked into an American divorce? Because all the available evidence suggests that it's just not true...more...

[tokyolimited]

So I'm thinking of waiting till 2020 before I take my girl back home to the States.
And 2030 before I punch another guy who whispers to me about keeping my Japanese women on a tight leash.

Who am I kidding?
This stereotype will go a long way.

[Bucky]

[ythq]f4b5nAo3GbE[/ythq]

[Number11]

What is wrong with her and the kids living in Japan, and him visiting them every month, since he has an office in Japan? I guess there isn't enough drama in that arrangement.

I've changed my mind about this story and the people involved - I'm now tired of it and both of them, plus their lawyers. I'm so tired that I think I'll take nap now.

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

What is wrong with her and the kids living in Japan, and him visiting them every month, since he has an office in Japan? I guess there isn't enough drama in that arrangement.

I've changed my mind about this story and the people involved - I'm now tired of it and both of them, plus their lawyers. I'm so tired that I think I'll take nap now.

Agreed...they're both shits (and I believe so more every day with each snippet of new information that is leaked out). Neither deserves the kids for what they've put them through.
Let the kids divorce mum and dad, put the 700-800 grand in a trust and foster them out to people who'll act in their best interests.

[Behan]

Agreed...they're both shits (and I believe so more every day with each snippet of new information that is leaked out). Neither deserves the kids for what they've put them through.
Let the kids divorce mum and dad, put the 700-800 grand in a trust and foster them out to people who'll act in their best interests.

You might be right about him but it's still frustrating how Japanese people ignore foreign court orders, flee here with their children, and the Japanese courts refuse to do anything.

[sublight]

And you know this for a fact?

Well, if the neighbor hasn't been complaining that his son was born without a cock, then it's pretty much a given, isn't it?

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

You might be right about him but it's still frustrating how Japanese people ignore foreign court orders, flee here with their children, and the Japanese courts refuse to do anything.

True. You can't really blame the courts, though; they can only make decisions based on the laws. It goes deeper...the bureaucrats who're stopping the country from recognizing the Hague Convention are the real crims.

[sublight]

In the discussion over at MFT, Debito weighs in as though he had first-hand knowledge of Japanese divorce proceedings.

I'd heard that his was wife was getting sick of living with a professional martyr, but did she finally call it quits or is he just blowing smoke as usual?

[omae mona]

In the discussion over at MFT, Debito weighs in as though he had first-hand knowledge of Japanese divorce proceedings.

I'd heard that his was wife was getting sick of living with a professional martyr, but did she finally call it quits or is he just blowing smoke as usual?

IIRC he has been divorced for at least 4 or 5 years, and written fairly extensively about it on his blogs.

[Greji]

IIRC he has been divorced for at least 4 or 5 years, and written fairly extensively about it on his blogs.

You are correct.

[BO-SENSEI]

In the discussion over at MFT, Debito weighs in as though he had first-hand knowledge of Japanese divorce proceedings.

I'd heard that his was wife was getting sick of living with a professional martyr, but did she finally call it quits or is he just blowing smoke as usual?

IIRC, he was well divorced before he became a professional martyr.

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

It's interesting to see the way reactions to this story are changing.
Initially, the guy got sympathy, then the wife gets some and it swings back and forth and so on.
But, typically, the Japanese media, the Japanapologistsand the minority of Japanese in the blogsphere who give a fuck about this issue, have started harping on about how there are Japanese victims, too, so it's not all about the foreigner getting shafted.
It's a really common pattern for the nationalistically educated Japanese to react whenever there's a controversy involving the international community. It's always denial, denial, denial, refusal to accept responsibility and then claim to be victims, too. In the end, nothing changes and the cycle continues until the next controversy. That's not just with divorce; it applies to so many aspects of life here. Good examples are war responsibility, comfort women, even whaling and trade barriers.
And all the way it allows fundamental issues to remain clouded without a solution ever being seriously discussed.
A lot of times during divorces, both parties do suck...as we're perhaps seeing here. And laws here do screw Japanese, too. But -- at the risk of sounding like a broken record -- the biggest victims of divorce are always the kids.
Hague convention signed or unsigned, mum bad, dad bad, gaijin victim, Japanese victim -- it really matters SFA.
The fundamental issue here, IMHO, is that Japanese law totally disregards the rights of the biggest victims of any divorce where kids are involved: the children, be they nationals or haafu or whatever.
And until that problem is addressed (and the reason it hasn't been addressed leads onto even deeper issues, I feel...), shit like this case and all the Japanese parents who are screwed by the system after divorcing, is just going to keep on recurring.

[FG Lurker]

Divorced fathers in Japan fight to see children
Mainichi Daily News, October 8, 2009

On Christmas Eve two years ago, Masahiro Yoshida returned to his home to find it empty. His wife had fled with their 2-year-old daughter, seeking a divorce.

Since then, he's rarely seen his child because Japanese law grants custody to only one parent -- almost always the mother. His wife has refused to allow him regular visits, accusing him of emotional swings and past verbal and sometimes physical abuse.

[...]

The law was thrown into the international spotlight last week when an American was arrested for allegedly snatching his children from his Japanese ex-wife as they walked to school in southern Japan. Christopher Savoie, a 38-year-old Tennessee man, remains in custody in the city of Fukuoka while prosecutors decide whether to press charges.

His case has received little attention in Japan, a reflection of how widely accepted it is that young children should remain with their mother in divorces or separations. The law doesn't explicitly say mothers should get custody -- only that one parent should, and by cultural default, that's the mother.

[...]

Japan also faces a growing number of international custody disputes. The U.S., Britain, France and Canada have urged Japan to sign the 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, which has been signed by 80 countries. It seeks to standardize laws among participating countries to ensure that custody decisions can be made by appropriate courts and protect the rights of access of both parents.

Japan's government has argued that signing the convention may not protect Japanese women and their children from abusive foreign husbands. Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada said this week that officials were reviewing the matter.

Divorced fathers say that joining the Hague convention would be a major step toward bringing the possibility of joint custody to Japan because it would require a major overhaul of the country's family laws.

(Full Story)

It looks like this story was in the Japanese version of the Mainichi as well. It's good to see this getting some exposure in the Japanese press and being linked to domestic custody problems as well. I don't have hope that this will be fixed anytime soon but this reaching a somewhat broader audience isn't a bad thing.

The only thing that concerns me about this is that an overhaul of custody laws could end up leading to divorces becoming a lot more westernized as well. Divorce laws in the US and Canada are so heavily tilted against men that it's insane.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Japan's government has argued that signing the convention may not protect Japanese women and their children from abusive foreign husbands.

Why doesn't anyone ever worry about protecting husbands from abusive wives?

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

The only thing that concerns me about this is that an overhaul of custody laws could end up leading to divorces becoming a lot more westernized as well. Divorce laws in the US and Canada are so heavily tilted against men that it's insane.

It's true...the only times I got screwed with my marriages was the instances when conception resulted and at their very end. I know all-too-painfully what you're saying, having had two divorces, both involving kids.
But, I figure the parents in a divorce should have less rights than their kids because they are making a conscious, adult decision that, by definition, the children can't.
I got taken to the cleaners both times, but the result was some fairly stable kids who retain good relations with both parents and were not as traumatized y the whole thing as they could have been.

[omae mona]

Divorced fathers say that joining the Hague convention would be a major step toward bringing the possibility of joint custody to Japan because it would require a major overhaul of the country's family laws.

Could anybody explain this line of reasoning to me? I thought that Hague just says the children need to be returned to their country of "habitual residence", so the legal system in that country will decide what to do. It seems like to comply with Hague a local judge would simply need to determine where the child was living regularly. If the answer is not "Japan", then he puts the kid on an airplane. Otherwise, the court can proceed exactly the same way it has been operating, with the same laws.

I am failing to see what else would need to be overhauled besides returning a clearly kidnapped child to the original country. I would guess 99.99% of divorce cases in Japan have nothing to do with international abductions.

[FG Lurker]

Could anybody explain this line of reasoning to me?

I don't know all that much about Hague, but I would guess that as it deals with international child custody disputes that it has text about how to handle international shared custody, among other things. I don't think it only deals with parental kidnappings.

[omae mona]

I don't know all that much about Hague, but I would guess that as it deals with international child custody disputes that it has text about how to handle international shared custody, among other things. I don't think it only deals with parental kidnappings.

FGL, for a minute I thought you might have the right answer there, so I did a little investigating. It doesn't look like your theory is right. All of the Japan-related discussion is specifically about the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. It turns out that it is very specific and it does, indeed, deal only with parental kidnappings. It very specifically stays away from making any judgements about custody rights. All it says is that you have to put the kid back in the country he/she was abducted from.

The Convention provides that the court in which a Hague Convention action is filed should not consider the merits of any underlying child custody dispute, but should determine only that country in which those issues should be heard. Return of the child is to the member nation rather than specifically to the left behind parent.

So I fail to understand either why foreign parents living in Japan are optimistic, or why any Japanese are against the idea. Hague has absolutely zero impact on custody cases that do not involve an international kidnapping.

[Behan]

So I fail to understand either why foreign parents living in Japan are optimistic, or why any Japanese are against the idea. Hague has absolutely zero impact on custody cases that do not involve an international kidnapping.

I think that in some of the cases the FG parents have come over to Japan to try to take their children back. But you have a good point.

[FG Lurker]

FGL, for a minute I thought you might have the right answer there, so I did a little investigating. It doesn't look like your theory is right.

Good thing I put in that disclaimer then! Thanks for taking the time to look it up.

It looks like people might have false hope WRT what the Hague represents.

[FG Lurker]

I got taken to the cleaners both times, but the result was some fairly stable kids who retain good relations with both parents and were not as traumatized y the whole thing as they could have been.

I've been divorced once but thankfully no kids involved. At the time of the divorce neither of us had any money so there wasn't anything to fight over. We ended up splitting our "assets" (what there was of them) 50-50 and filed an uncontested divorce with no legal representation on either side. It was about as good a divorce as a person can have and I was extremely happy to be free!!

I'm married again now, and if we end up divorced (not expected but there are certainly days...... ) I would be more than happy to pay child support. Assets would be split up and that is fine too really, we built them during our time together. This western bullshit idea of "spousal support" though is really fucked up. If two adults split one should not still depend on the other for support!!

[wuchan]

FGL, for a minute I thought you might have the right answer there, so I did a little investigating. It doesn't look like your theory is right. All of the Japan-related discussion is specifically about the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. It turns out that it is very specific and it does, indeed, deal only with parental kidnappings. It very specifically stays away from making any judgements about custody rights. All it says is that you have to put the kid back in the country he/she was abducted from.

The hague act does not in any way protect "parents rights", it was designed to protect children. The most relevant part to this case is the fact that that the act takes into account the child's time spent in a country. The hague act states that the child belongs in the country he/she spent most of their lives in. In this case the father is fighting a loosing battle, the kids are japanese and lived most of their lives here. To me it seems like he did not do his homework, which is a bit surprising with him being a "lawyer"...... well a j-lawyer....... never mind my off track rambling, I now see why he is ignorant. Back on track, he should have done more research. He in no way qualifies for Hague Convention protection.



This thread has gone on for way too long, time to lock it.

[Mulboyne]

Could anybody explain this line of reasoning to me?

If Japan signs Hague and intends to uphold its obligations then there may indeed be a problem. If a Japanese mother attempted to deny a foreign father visitation rights awarded in an overseas court to by fleeing to Japan, then Japanese authorities would need to locate her and perhaps even take the children from her. However, if a father wins visitation rights in a Japanese court and his ex-wife goes into hiding, refusing to allow him to see them, domestic laws don't require the Japanese authorities to do anything.

So, Japan could end up in a strange situation where authorities intervene to enforce custody decisions of an overseas court but not those of a domestic court. More likely, there would need to be some consistency which would mean overhauling domestic family law to provide enforcement mechanisms which don't currently exist.

[omae mona]

If Japan signs Hague and intends to uphold its obligations then there may indeed be a problem. If a Japanese mother attempted to deny a foreign father visitation rights awarded in an overseas court to by fleeing to Japan, then Japanese authorities would need to locate her and perhaps even take the children from her. However, if a father wins visitation rights in a Japanese court and his ex-wife goes into hiding, refusing to allow him to see them, domestic laws don't require the Japanese authorities to do anything.

So, Japan could end up in a strange situation where authorities intervene to enforce custody decisions of an overseas court but not those of a domestic court. More likely, there would need to be some consistency which would mean overhauling domestic family law to provide enforcement mechanisms which don't currently exist.

Yes, I see how that could appear strange and inconsistent from one point of view. But in reality, Japan is absolutely not enforcing custody decisions of an overseas court - they are merely returning the child to the original country (note Hague is specific that the child gets returned to the government, not to the left- behind parent). Of course as a side effect, yes, the other government may be able to enforce custody decisions.

In fact, I think most often Hague would not have that result at all. If I understand correctly, the majority of Japanese kidnappers are still married, so there is no custody decision yet. Hague simply says they must go to court in the U.S. In fact, the result of the U.S. court case could still be that the Japanese parent gets custody.

[Ketou]

What happens then if an overseas court grants joint custody?

[Bucky]

Ten more days in the Gray Bar Hotel

There's been a major setback for a Franklin father who was locked up in a Japanese jail, accused of trying to abduct the children who were abducted from Tennessee. Prosecutors in Fukuoka, Japan, have decided to hold Christopher Savoie another 10 days while they decide what to do with his case. That's the word from the U.S. Consulate in Fukuoka.
Tracy Taylor, the consulate's public affairs officer, told NewsChannel 5 via email, that U.S. officials met with Savoie again Friday, but she did not elaborate on his condition. Prosecutors must decide at the end of this second 10-day hold whether to indict him or release him.

[Mulboyne]

News Channel 5: Franklin Dad Considers Hunger Strike in Japanese Jail

Foreign Policy: The U.S. Japan child-custody spat