Orange County Divorce Lawyer Blog

Unlike the rights a non-custodial parent would get here in an Orange County or Los Angeles County court system, Japan's custody laws are vastly different. In Japan, 100% custody is typically awarded to the mother, even in divorces involving Japanese parents. It is most certainly the custody battle from hell -- a battle that's impossible for a father to win.

This is precisely the case involving Christopher Savoie, whose ex-wife, Noriko took their two children from the United States to her home in Japan eight months ago in violation of a Tennessee court order. Because Japanese law gives sole custody to the mother and does not recognize international treaties upholding parental custody rights, Savoie may never see his two children until they are adults.

In the past 10 years, Savoie said, 231 children have been abducted from America to Japan. Since 1952, when Japan returned to self-governance after World War II, no child taken to the county by its Japanese mother has ever returned.

"Japan hasn't returned one child -- ever," Savoie said.

While the House resolution has no force of law, Savoie hopes that Japan will update its laws if sufficient pressure is put on the government.

These international custody battles are becoming more and more prevalant. I previously blogged about Orange County's Andrew Ko here. Regardless, if you are facing an imminent custody battle, contact a reputable Orange County attorney to learn more about your rights.

Source: Dad: Japan a custody "black hole"

The Supreme Court ruled Monday, May 17, 2010, that a Texas mother illegally moved her son from Chile to the United States during a custody dispute with the boy's British father in the first test of the boundaries of an international child custody treaty.

The high court ruled that the Hague Convention on child abduction -- aimed at preventing a parent from taking children to other countries without the other parent's permission -- demands that the child goes back to the South American country.

However, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the 6-3 decision, said Jacquelyn Abbott can argue in lower courts in the United States for an exception to the international treaty that could allow her son to stay in the U.S.

The child, born in Hawaii, is a U.S. citizen.

Timothy Abbott accused his estranged wife of violating a court order in Chile by taking their 10-year-old son to Texas without the father's consent.

Timothy Abbott asked an American court to order the child returned to Chile, based on the treaty. The Chilean courts had given him visitation rights and the authority to consent before the other parent takes the child to another country, known as "ne exeat rights".

The mother argued that she has exclusive custody of the boy, and that U.S. courts are powerless under the treaty to order his return.

A federal judge acknowledged that taking the son to the United States violated the Chilean court order but sided with the mother, and the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

The Supreme Court reversed the appeals court decision.

"To interpret the Convention to permit an abducting parent to avoid a return remedy, even when the other parent holds a ne exeat right, would run counter to the Convention's purpose of deterring child abductions by parents who attempt to find a friendlier forum for deciding custodial disputes," Kennedy said.

The United States is among more than 80 countries that follow the treaty, and the Obama administration had sided with Timothy Abbott.

He "has the ability to decide whether or not the child may be taken outside of the country of habitual residence, and thus the right to share in the decision as to where the child will reside," Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote in court briefs.

Kagan now has been nominated by President Barack Obama for the Supreme Court.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer dissented from the court's opinion.

Stevens said the boy's father never had custody rights, only visitation rights. That means that the father cannot determine where the boy lives, he said.

"A parent without 'rights of custody,' therefore, does not have the power granted by (the treaty) to compel the child's return to his or her country of habitual residence," Stevens said.

Kennedy said that an exception to the Hague Convention deals with the safety of the parent.

"If, for example, Ms. Abbott could demonstrate that returning to Chile would put her own safety at risk, the court could consider whether this is sufficient to show that the child too would suffer 'psychological harm' or be placed in an intolerable situation," Kennedy said.

Lower courts can also take into account the child's wishes if he is mature enough to express them, Kennedy said.

An Orange County child custody attorney can assist you in any international custody disputes you may be facing. Contact an Orange County family law attorney for more information.

Source: Justices: Child Should have stayed in Chile

An important Supreme Court decision issued last week may have implications for Orange County and other Southern California parents involved in Orange County child custody cases that stretch across borders.

By a vote of 6-3 the court overturned rulings by both a federal district court and a circuit court and held that an American mother acted illegally when she brought her son to the United States from Chile in violation of a Chilean court order, according to the Associated Press. The child, born in Hawaii, is, like his mother, a US citizen. The boy's father is British, but the family lived in Chile and the parents were divorced there. Their divorce order gave the mother custody. While the father had only visitation rights, he also benefitted from a Chilean court order giving him "the authority to consent before the other parent takes the child to another country," the AP reports.

It was this violation that the father sought to enforce in US courts, citing the Hague Convention on Child Abduction, a treaty ratified by more than 80 countries, including the United States. In a dissent Justice John Paul Stevens, who plans to retire from the court this summer, argued that since the father does not have formal custodial rights the treaty offered him no relief. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, however, countered that "deterring child abductions by parents who attempt to find a friendlier forum for deciding custodial disputes" is precisely what the treaty was designed to prevent.

Custody disputes are never easy, and child custody disputes that stretch across borders are often unusually complicated. Like most communities within a few hundred miles of the border we here in Orange County have more than our share of international custody issues. Finding an Orange County child custody visitation lawyer with expertise in international child custody issues is especially important if a divorcing couple are of different nationalities, or if you fear a former spouse may flee to a foreign country with your children.

AP: Justices: Child should have stayed in Chile

National Law Journal: International Abduction Treaty Trumps Parental Rights, Says U.S. Supreme Court