American arrested in Fukuoka for kidnapping own kids from ex-wife

Thursday 01st October, 03:56 AM JST

TOKYO —

An American father was arrested in Japan after snatching his children from his ex-wife, who had taken the kids to her native country without telling him.

The back-and-forth exposes a simmering diplomatic dispute over Japan’s traditional favoritism toward mothers in custody battles. While the father was apprehended by Japanese authorities, a U.S. court has issued an arrest warrant for the mother.

Christopher Savoie grabbed his two children—an 8-year-old boy and a 6-year-old girl—while they were walking to school on Monday, forcing them into a car and driving away, Akira Naraki, a police spokesman in the southern city of Fukuoka, said Wednesday.

His former wife, Noriko, then called the police. Savoie, a 38-year-old technology executive from Franklin, Tennessee, was arrested just as he was about to enter the U.S. Consulate in Fukuoka with his children, said Tracy Taylor, a spokeswoman at the consulate.

Savoie is chief executive officer of Franklin-based Tazzle Inc. Tazzle makes data sharing devices for BlackBerry mobile phones and has an office in Tokyo that looks after manufacturing in Asia, according to the company’s website.

The divorced couple and their children were living in Tennessee, but Noriko came to Japan with the kids in August without telling her ex-husband, Taylor said.

Christopher Savoie only discovered his children were gone when their school called him Aug 13 to say they had not showed up, according to an affidavit filed with the arrest warrant against his ex-wife for violating the terms of custody.

Alarmed that he would no longer be able to see his children, Savoie flew to Japan to reclaim them, said Jeremy Morley, one of his lawyers.

Divorced fathers in Japan typically don’t get much access to their children because of widespread cultural beliefs that small children should be with their mothers.

That stance has begun to raise concern abroad, following a recent spate of incidents involving Japanese mothers bringing their children back to the country and refusing to let their foreign ex-husbands visit them. The United States, Canada, Britain and France issued a joint statement in May urging Japan to address the problem.

“Japan is an important partner and friend of the U.S., but on this issue we have quite different points of view,” said David Marks, U.S. Embassy spokesman in Tokyo.

Tennessee Gov Phil Bredesen’s office has not been contacted and has not become involved in the case, a spokeswoman said.

Japan has had close ties to Tennessee since Nissan built its first U.S. manufacturing plant in suburban Nashville in the early 1980s. Nissan relocated its North American headquarters from California to Franklin in 2006, and the Japanese consulate for five southern states was moved from New Orleans to Nashville early last year.

Children are increasingly caught in the middle of those legal battles as the number of divorces among couples of Japanese and foreign nationality have almost doubled to nearly 19,000 cases in 2008 from just more than 10,000 in 1998, according to the Health and Welfare Ministry.

Japan has yet to sign the 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, which seeks to ensure that custody decisions are made by the appropriate courts and that the rights of access of both parents are protected. Tokyo has argued that The Hague Convention could hinder its ability to shield Japanese women and their children fleeing abusive foreign husbands.

Tokyo is aware of the need to address the issue and is considering joining The Hague convention, said Kosei Nomura, a Foreign Ministry official in charge of international law. He said at least 70 dispute cases exist between Japan and the U.S., but the government does not have the exact number.

Because of Japan’s stance, U.S. court rulings in the past have decided in favor of keeping children in that country, saying American parents would otherwise totally lose their custody right.

Local police in Japan said they received court permission to keep Savoie in custody for 10 days. He was not officially charged. American Consulate officials have twice visited Savoie, who also has a Japanese lawyer.

The Savoies were divorced in January and the mother was given primary custody of the children, while the father was granted limited time with them, according to court records.

Savoie has since remarried. His wife, Amy, told CBS’s “The Early Show,” that Noriko was not letting the children talk to him on the telephone after she took them to Japan.

U.S. Representative Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican, told The Associated Press he has introduced a bill called the International Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2009, which would penalize countries that show a pattern of not cooperating to resolve such cases. Penalties could include being denied military aid and certain loans, he said.

___

Associated Press Writers Mari Yamaguchi and Shino Yuasa in Tokyo and Bernard McGhee in Atlanta contributed to this report.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 373 Total Comments Show All

moonbeams at 01:02 PM JST - 7th October

I'm going to guess that the children would probably prefer to live in Japan. It's terrible for children to have to choose a parent, but in this case I think the best way to solve it is to grant the children dual citizenship until 20 and let them choose where to grow up.
frontandcentre at 02:36 PM JST - 7th October

BhuddismTech - you don't sound much like a Bhuddist to me...

Both the parents in this case appear to be guilty, quite equally, as they both abducted the children. The difference is that the mother succeeded getting them out of the USA and the Father failed to get them out of Japan. I think they're both in the wrong.
Cicada at 03:13 PM JST - 7th October

frontandcentre

Both the parents in this case appear to be guilty, quite equally, as they both abducted the children. The difference is that the mother succeeded getting them out of the USA and the Father failed to get them out of Japan.

The difference in guilt is quite large. In America, Noriko had custody of the children and had permission to be in Japan during summer vacation. Her "abduction" consisted of a decision not to board a plane and go back to America. Therefore, her (non-violent) violation of the American court order did not even occur in America; it occurred in Japan. As the judge had explained to her, by so doing she would lose alimony and monthly payments.

Christopher, in contrast, committed a violent crime of abduction in Japan. He enlisted the help of "friends" and together they forcibly took the children from the mother while she was walking with them to school.

The children resisted, and so did the mother. This was a forcible kidnap, a violent crime, that would have direct traumatic impact upon the children. Clearly, Chris knew he could not force the kids into a car by himself, and so he brought along accomplices.

Why does the Western media fail to mention the role of accomplices?

Noriko violated an American court order while she was in Japan (where this court order does not even apply) and Christopher committed a violent crime while he was in Japan.

How could you possibly think that these are at all equal?

It will be interesting to see if the accomplices are arrested. Meanwhile, Chris Savoie sits in jail where he belongs, and Noriko has been forced to hide from the American media, which has been misrepresenting the story to the American public.

Hopefully, Chris will be severely punished and Noriko will be left alone to recuperate from the traumas afflicted upon her by Chris and that homewrecking loud-mouth Amy.
DwightVanWinkle at 05:27 PM JST - 7th October

Cicada, just to be accurate, Noriko Savoie brought the kids back to Tennessee after the vacation in Japan. The kids then went on a trip with the father and his new wife, I think to New England. For whatever reason, she came back, then left again.
Cicada at 06:08 PM JST - 7th October

DwightVanWinkle:

just to be accurate, Noriko Savoie brought the kids back to Tennessee after the vacation in Japan. The kids then went on a trip with the father and his new wife, I think to New England. For whatever reason, she came back, then left again.

I'm aware of this, but the point is that she left for Japan before school had begun. Had she come back to Tennessee in time for school, there would have been no violation. Therefore, her violation of the American court order occurred in Japan.

I'm making this distinction because Amy's crafty version for the media would have people believe that Noriko "abducted" the children from Chris and Amy's home, which is nonsense. When Noriko took the children from that home(presumably after their New England vacation), it was Noriko who had custody of the children. No violation or abduction occurred there.
bobbafett at 01:09 AM JST - 8th October

Its a shame that Japanese fathers (I will speak in general in regards to which spouse) do not have the balls that Chris has.

If they did then maybe the law would be forced to change regarding the inability to have children on multiple family registers.

After that happened and Japanese fathers were able to have equal access to their own kids then maybe there would be hope for foreigners too but as it stands now, there is no hope for Chris.

In this case I support Noriko but there must be other cases where men have had their children ripped from them undeservedly but of course the main reason for losing access to your kids is beating your wife and/or cheating.

I can almost guarantee that cheating is biggest reason and those that lost their kids because of it, deserve it.
LFRAgain at 02:26 AM JST - 8th October

"Nonsense, I clearly acknowledged that she violated the American court order by not going back to America from Japan in time for the kids to attend school in Tennessee."

Okay. How do I say this without sounding like I'm patronizing the hearing-impaired by speaking more loudly, as if that will somehow aid comprehesion?

Noriko DID NOT leave the country during summer vacation and simply fail to return in time.

She took the children home for summer vacation, AND RETURNED IN TIME.

Noriko THEN took the children out of the country THREE DAYS INTO THE NEW SCHOOL TERM ON AUGUST 13TH. That violated a court order and was determined by Tennessee courts to be KIDNAPPING.

No matter how many times you keep saying that this a case of her simply naot returning in time to meet the terms of the court order, that doesn't make it magically so. Sadly, you aren't arguing this on reason, but rather on full-throttle emotion, something that may explain why you pointedly refuse to accept this as a point of fact. Which makes it virtually impossible to discuss this with you.
amerijap at 07:21 AM JST - 8th October

In this case I support Noriko but there must be other cases where men have had their children ripped from them undeservedly but of course the main reason for losing access to your kids is beating your wife and/or cheating.

I can almost guarantee that cheating is biggest reason and those that lost their kids because of it, deserve it.

Where's the proof for his cheating habits? If there's a smoking gun, all of us should find it right up in the middle of the article.

Noriko THEN took the children out of the country THREE DAYS INTO THE NEW SCHOOL TERM ON AUGUST 13TH.

Yep, what the court ordered is that she can take her children for vacation- not the school. And the fact that she testified at the court to remain in the US is another heavy blow. She puts a legal strain on her residency. Ouch.
DwightVanWinkle at 10:56 AM JST - 8th October

Amerijap, I don't think it's what she said that is the problem. That was 4 months earlier and could have another meaning - that she had always intended to let the father see the kids. The problem for her residency is what she did. She left, in violation of the court order. For the sake of the kids, I hope that can be resolved, because her not being able to come to the U.S. is going to make it less likely they come here anytime soon.

This is a tragedy, because the U.S. court will have to be concerned about sending a message that Japanese mothers can violate U.S. court orders, and the Japanese prosecutor, and court if it goes there, will have to be concerned about sending a message that self-help by foreign fathers is OK. So all this publicity is going to make it harder to get leniency on both sides, which I think could help the children.
Cicada at 06:13 PM JST - 8th October

LFRAgain:

Noriko THEN took the children out of the country THREE DAYS INTO THE NEW SCHOOL TERM ON AUGUST 13TH. That violated a court order and was determined by Tennessee courts to be KIDNAPPING.

Sometimes you claim it is "abduction" and sometimes "kidnapping". Why not post for us the exact wording of the court determination so that you can settle on which term is best?

No matter how many times you keep saying that this a case of her simply not returning in time to meet the terms of the court order, that doesn't make it magically so.

It's not magic, it is fact. The violation would not have occurred had she been back in time for the children to attend school. So any determination of "kidnapping" or whatever is based upon her not bringing the children to the school in time for the first class, as she was required to do.

An important distinction to make here is that the brutal forcible abduction carried out by Chris and his 4 henchmen was a violent crime taking place at a specific location and a specific time.

You do not seem to grasp the idea that Noriko did not abduct the children from Amy's home, as Amy claimed to the media. Nor did she abduct them on their way to school. Her "abduction" was a failure to bring them to the school on time.

It's time to stop playing with semantics, acting like the violent crime perpetrated by Chris is in any way comparable to Noriko's decision to stay in Japan, where the kids had always been.
DwightVanWinkle at 04:14 PM JST - 9th October

If anyone is still reading, I think I was wrong to say Japan was the home state of the kids for determining child custody. Even two days after they moved to Tennessee, the question became whether they had significant connections to Tennessee. I still think the mother was treated very unfairly by the father, and that this case is very different from the usual child abduction to Japan case. I also still think the mother deserves to believed when she said in March that she had never wanted to keep the father from seeking the children. And although this is in retrospect, I still think that this divorce did not belong in Tennessee because of assumptions about the mother, who is also a victim of the Japanese system. She's not the one who chose to marry into that system.
Cicada at 09:13 PM JST - 9th October

DwightVanWinkle:

I still think that this divorce did not belong in Tennessee because of assumptions about the mother

I agree, but what is there from preventing this from happening again and again? The more publicized the story, the more sly people will see ways to set a trap for their Japanese spouse like Chris did.

that this case is very different from the usual child abduction to Japan case.

How can you be sure? Have you looked at all the other cases? I wonder if many of the other 100 so-called abductions were not similar to this case.

Perhaps Hague Convention rules need to be modified to encourage Japan's signing.
DwightVanWinkle at 12:56 PM JST - 10th October

Cicada, the Hague Convention rules are very flexible and leave a lot of discretion with the nations that sign on. I was thinking maybe Japan and the U.S. could do a bilateral agreement, or Japan could make "reservations" that would make it willing to sign. Them I read the Hague Convention, as you should. It is really very flexible.

Seems like you are just here to hate on the father and Hague Convention. Am I wrong?
ensnaturae at 05:16 PM JST - 10th October

There are so many very emotional issues between making and breaking cross-cultural families - that anything so sensitive as decisions in law, concerning the childrens' upbringing, should not be considered without court representation and full support for both parents and the children, taking CULTURAL DIFFERENCES into account. I cannot understand how anyone is surprised if someone fails to keep laws imposed in any other way - that seriously affect the lives of parents and their children. I repeat, USA law - is not the voice of god.
Cicada at 05:17 PM JST - 10th October

DwightVanWinkle: There is a thin line between flexibility and ambiguity.

Seems like you are just here to hate on the father and Hague Convention. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are. I call the shots as I see them, without any agenda. In this case, the father and his homewrecker bride Amy are clearly responsible for all the difficulties after the divorce.

I would not judge before the divorce, except that seeing the character of Amy and Chris after the divorce leads one to believe that Chris's unwise decisions and abusive behavior have roots that go far back.