Tennessee judge in Savoie case may have seriously erred

An attorney who works closely with Children’s Rights Council of Japan, and who himself has had his children abducted to Japan, has noted that under Tennessee law parents must agree on a new visitation schedule, costs, and other relevant factors before a party may relocate with children. 

Tennessee statute further states that if the proposed move is to a foreign country whose public policy does not normally enforce visitation rights of non-custodial parents or which otherwise presents a substantial risk of specific and serious harm to a child is involved the relocation would be deemed as not having a reasonable purpose and would be disallowed.  (see Tennessee Code Unannotated 36-6-108)

This second clause as described above is the case we face with Japan.  Japan does not enforce visitation rights and in fact the culture encourages the total separation of parent and child after divorce.

Judge Jim Martin, after presented with OVERWHELMING evidence that Japan would not “participate” in any solution if things went wrong for visits and ignoring the evidence in the case, used his discretion and allowed the visit.  There is a possible conflict-of-interests here since the judge was previously a mediator in the case!  Granted, this was not a relocation case BUT anytime a court considers visits to a Non-Hague country extra caution should be taken.

Texas, California and Utah have enacted similar statutes to protect kids and they go as far to include temporary visits such as was originally proposed in this case.