Hague Child Abduction Convention Research Articles

Children's Objections in Hague Child Abduction Convention Proceedings in Australia and the 'Strength of Feeling' Requirement

Children's Objections in Hague Child Abduction Convention Proceedings in Australia and the 'Strength of Feeling' Requirement

The Interplay between the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and Domestic Violence

When a mother commits an international child abduction, even if she is fleeing domestic violence perpetrated by the left-behind father, she is bound to face complicated return proceedings under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. Such mothers are particularly vulnerable; apart from the costly, cross-border proceedings they face, if the court issues a return order, they risk returning to the abusive setting they fled from. This article explores avenues for safeguarding the protection of abducting mothers in return proceedings. The authors provide a range of potential avenues for improving the standing of the abducting mother fleeing domestic violence, including judicial and legislative interventions. The article delves deeper by considering the interplay between international child abduction law and international refugee law in cases involving domestic violence allegations. Particular emphasis is given to Article 20 and the growing instances of mothers defending return orders on asylum grounds pursuant to Article 20 and the flowing human rights implications. The authors point out a niche area for further research: the interplay between domestic violence and asylum claims.

Habitual Residence: Review of Developments and Proposed Guidelines

Habitual residence is a key concept in the scheme of the Hague Child Abduction Convention because it determines the applicability of the mandatory return mechanism. However, the concept is not defined, and over the years there have developed different approaches thereto. In recent years, there has been increasing doctrinal uniformity as a result of wide adoption of the hybrid approach. However, there are real disparities in the way in which this approach is applied by different judges and the question of habitual residence remains one of the most litigated issues under the Convention. This article reviews recent case law developments and explains the disparities. It then proceeds to propose guidelines that might assist in increasing uniformity and ensuring that findings of habitual residence promote the objectives of the Convention.

Evasive Manoeuvres: Strasbourg, the Hague Child Abduction Convention and the Absolute Prohibition on Ill-Treatment

Abstract This article identifies a troubling omission on the part of the European Court of Human Rights, when it considers cases involving the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Such cases often involve one parent, who has abducted the child, alleging that their actions were necessary to protect themselves or the child from violence by the other parent. The Court has avoided considering arguments based on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in such cases, despite the now established relevance of that Article to the risks of family violence. A change of course is needed, in order to articulate clear principles for the ECtHR’s own Hague cases, and reinforce the absoluteness of Article 3 protection elsewhere.

Children’s Objections in Hague Child Abduction Convention Proceedings in Australia and the “Strength of Feeling” Requirement

Abstract The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction creates an exception to the mandatory return of abducted children if the child objects to being returned to their country of habitual residence and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of their views. The Australian regulations also require that the child’s objection demonstrates a ‘strength of feeling beyond the mere expression of a preference or of ordinary wishes.’ This article examines this unique requirement and how it has been approached by the Family Court. It finds that many Australian judges treat the “strength of feeling” requirement as an additional hurdle that children must overcome before their objection can be taken into account. This approach is contrary to Australia’s international obligations under the Convention. A less restrictive approach, which some other judges follow, is recommended to ensure that the Convention’s primary objective of protecting children is met.

Legislation as a Social Process: Japanese Family Law and the Drafting of the Bill on the Hague Child Abduction Convention

AbstractWhen Japan signed the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, the government enacted a new act to deal with international parental child abduction according to the Convention in the same year. The Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs were immediately in charge of making a draft Bill. Once the government and respective ministries had instantly set up the legal and administrative procedure for dealing with international family issue under the Convention, as some studies argue, simultaneous issues of the family in separation in Japan were underdeveloped. Employing a method of content analysis of the record of policy debates by authorities, observing both diplomatic and domestic frames referred in the debate in contrast, this paper highlights this law-making process delivered and elucidated continuous consecutive inquiries about radical questions of the current Japanese family law regarding the wellbeing of the changing families and their children in contemporary Japan.

Return travel and Covid-19 as a grave risk of harm in Hague Child Abduction Convention cases

Since February, 2020, courts have been faced with many novel arguments concerning the Covid-19 pandemic in return proceedings under the “grave risk exception” provided in Article 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Hague Convention. This article presents an analysis of judgments delivered by courts internationally which concern arguments regarding the safety of international travel in return proceedings during the Covid-19 pandemic. While courts have largely taken a restrictive approach, important clarity has been provided regarding the risk of contracting Covid-19 as against the grave risk of harm, as well as other factors such as ensuring a prompt return despite practical impediments raised by Covid-19 and about quarantine requirements in the context of return orders. Given that the pandemic is ongoing, it is important to reflect on this case law and anticipate possible future issues.

Examining the problem of joint custody in Japan: State familialism and family law reform

AbstractJapan's principle of granting sole child custody after divorce has been challenged by both the public and intellectuals. The country's ratification of the Hague Child Abduction Convention in 2014 and the Ministry of Justice's subsequent statement in 2019 regarding a possible inclusion of joint custody into the future family law are expected to lead to a move towards establishing shared parenting after divorce. Nonetheless, some activists and intellectuals in Japan have raised concerns that joint custody exposes the child and mother to the risk of violence by husband. Taking these debates into consideration, this article uses a social constructionist approach to analyse the records of the legislative committee and voices of activists to show the ways in which a challenge to the law and policy reform to shared parenting after divorce has been brought to a standstill in contemporary Japan.

The Hague Child Abduction Convention and Re-relocation Disputes

Abstract It is widely recognized that the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ('the Convention') is invoked in types of cases which were not envisioned by the drafters and which might not naturally be classified as abduction cases. This article provides detailed consideration of one such type of case, which will be referred to as "re-relocation disputes." Such disputes arise when, following a temporary/ conditional move or a recent permanent move to a 'new' country, one parent wishes to return to the 'base' country', while the other insists on staying in the new country. The purpose of this article is to consider the impact and policy implications of using the Convention's mandatory return mechanism to resolve these disputes. Reframing these situations as re-relocation disputes facilitates analysis of the phenomenon from a broader perspective, including consideration of tools designed to create certainty and to produce result consistent with policy objectives. This discussion is particularly timely in the light of global jurisprudential developments over the last few years in relation to the test for determining the child's habitual residence and the implications of the recent decision of the English Court of Appeal in the case of Re NY[2019]UKSC 49 for consensual removals or retentions.

Return of a child under the 1980 Hague child abduction convention to a ‘third state’?

KEYWORDS: Child abduction1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abductionhabitual residencereturn to a ‘third state’

Three Patterns, One Law - Plea for a Reinterpretation of the Hague Child Abduction Convention to Protect Children from Exposure to Sexism, Mysogyny and Violence against Women

The 1980 Hague Convention must be read today in light of the 2011 Istanbul Convention that brings to full light that violence against women is a world-wide phenomenon, and “one of the most serious forms of gender-based violations of human rights in Europe that is still shrouded in silence”. The perspective proposed by this paper allows to break the silence and solve the conundrum of the dilemma on how the return mechanism should operate in practice, in order to ensure full compliance with the best interests of the child. Sexism, misogyny and violence against women may be the premise of child abductions carried out by taking fathers, permeated with a sexist culture, but also by taking mothers fleeing violence. The solution proposed here consists in re-establishing the original distinction of the 1980 Convention, between illicit transfers of a child’s residence and child abductions in the true sense.

Domestic violence and child participation: contemporary challenges for the 1980 hague child abduction convention

ABSTRACT This article addresses two contemporary challenges for the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention: (i) domestic violence and (ii) child participation. It also outlines three components of a global socio-legal policy and research initiative undertaken to address these issues and, where relevant, their intersection. The published literature on these topics, including the children’s objections exception, is explored, as are the ways in which these challenges are addressed within some of the 101 Contracting States to the Convention and through the Guide to Good Practice on Article 13(1)(b) of the Convention. Regard is paid to the data provided by the statistical analysis of applications made under the Convention in 2015 by Lowe and Stephens, and the changes which will occur once the Recast of The European Brussels 11a Regulation comes into operation. The likely impact for 1980 Hague Convention abduction proceedings of the UK having left the European Union at 23.00 GMT on 31 January 2020 is contemplated. Other current international initiatives are discussed, including the development of a child-friendly version of the Convention through The International Association of Child Law Researchers. Training is a key to changing attitudes and upskilling family justice professionals to ensure the Convention operates in a fully child-centric way. This will maintain and strengthen the Convention by keeping it ‘fit for purpose’.

THE EU COMMISSION'S PROPOSAL TO REVISE THE BRUSSELS IIa REGULATION: SHORTCOMINGS OF THE “OVERRIDING RULE”

As the procedure for the revision of the Brussels IIa Regulation is currently pending in the European Union, this paper focuses on the two issues which are correlated through the so-called “overriding rule” mechanism. The first problem concerns the proceeding on the return of the wrongfully removed or retained child involving two EU Member States – the State of refuge and the State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the abduction. The second one tackles the proceeding, currently regulated in the Brussels IIa, on the rights of custody (parental responsibility) when the return of the child was refused in the EU State on the grounds of Art. 13 of the Hague Child Abduction Convention. The proposals for the revision of the Brussels IIa Regulation heavily involve these issues. In that respect, the author indicates certain shortcomings and inconsistencies of the amendments proposed by the European Commission in the Proposal to Revise the Brussels IIa Regulation (2016) and the latest compromise solutions suggested by the Presidency to the Council in the General Approach to the Recast of Brussels IIa (2018). At the same time, the paper suggests two possible ways in which the balance between the principle of mutual trust between the EU Member States and the principle of the child's best interest could be better balanced. From the perspective of Private International Law of the Republic of Serbia, the revision of the Brussels IIa Regulation is important in view of Serbia’s candidate status for EU membership and the need to keep an eye on changes to the secondary EU legislation.

The interpretation and application of Article 13(1) b) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention in cases involving domestic violence: Revisiting X v Latvia and the principle of “effective examination”

A key interpretation and application issue in the scheme of Article 13(1) b) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention is whether judges should investigate first the merits of the defence before considering whether protective measures are adequate or whether they should first consider the adequacy of protective measures. There is no generally accepted international practice nor is there clear authority on the appropriate or preferred approach. This article argues that judges should always undertake an effective examination of the allegations of domestic violence first before considering whether, if there is merit to the allegations and they are substantiated, adequate protective measures can sufficiently ameliorate the grave risk of harm.

International child abduction and the best interests of the child: an analysis of judicial reasoning in two jurisdictions

The Hague Child Abduction Convention aims to secure the speedy return of abducted children. Judges can use a limited number of grounds for refusal. They may not make an in-depth assessment of the merits of any custody issue. The Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children. This article analyses the use that judges make in their decisions on the concept of “the best interests of the child”. For this purpose it scrutinizes the case law on international child abduction of the Netherlands and England and Wales. By using software designed for qualitative research, the authors are able to make an objective and systematic analysis. This article confirms the hypothesis that the concept of the best interests of the child is often used without substance, and sometimes only to endorse conclusions that would have possibly been reached in any event.

Separation from the Abducting Parent and the Best Interests of the Child: A Comparative Analysis of Case Law in Belgium, France and Switzerland

In international child abduction cases, two international legal frameworks interact with each other. On the one hand, the Hague Child Abduction Convention provides that the abducted child must be speedily taken back (unless an exception applies); which is seen as being in the best interests of the child in general. On the other hand, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that the best interests of the individual child must be a paramount consideration in all actions concerning him or her. The aim of this article is to examine how the case law of Belgium, France and Switzerland integrates the obligation of a speedy return and the obligation of safeguarding the individual child’s best interests. The article focuses on how judges determine the child’s best interests when assessing whether the separation between the child and the taking parent poses a grave risk for the child in the sense of Article 13.1.b Hague Child Abduction Convention. Looking at the analysed case law, we see an integrated approach: the courts of the chosen countries manage to take the best interests of the individual child into account during their consideration of the return proceedings and the grounds for refusal.

Stifled Voices: Hearing Children’s Objections in Hague Child Abduction Convention Cases in Australia

In 2012, four Italian children unlawfully retained in Australia by their mother were sent back to Italy, even though they had been in Australia for over 2 years, all four objected to being returned and the two elder children were aged 12 and 14 years at the time of the first hearing. The High Court of Australia ruled that the children had been afforded natural justice and that their views had been appropriately heard and considered, despite the children not having had legal representation or the opportunity to express their views directly. This article examines the meaning and operation of the ‘children’s objection’ exception to a mandatory return order made in Australia pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. While the general rule is that children unlawfully taken from their home country by a parent must be returned, Article 13 gives a court discretion to refuse to return a child if the child objects and is of sufficient age and maturity. In Australia, the child’s objection must also show a ‘strength of feeling’ beyond a mere preference or ordinary wishes. The authors discuss the limitations of the current procedures for hearing children’s objections in light of the child’s right to be heard pursuant to Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and advocate greater use of Independent Children’s Lawyers and meetings between children and judges in Hague Convention cases.

International Child Custody――including Hague Child Abduction Convention

International Child Custody――including Hague Child Abduction Convention

Conflicts of EU courts on child abduction: the reality of Article 11(6)-(8) Brussels IIa proceedings across the EU

This article contains the final findings from a research project funded by the Nuffield Foundation and conducted by the authors on “Conflicts of EU Courts on Child Abduction”. Such “conflicts” were deliberately created by the EU legislature when it created a power in Article 11(6)-(8) of the Brussels IIa Regulation for the courts of the habitual residence to insist on the return of a child that has been abducted after a court in the State where the child was abducted to has refused to return the child on the basis of one of the exceptions to the duty to return provided for in Article 13 of the Hague Child Abduction Convention 1980. It will reveal how infrequently used and largely ineffective the Article 11(6)-(8) system is and will make proposals for law reform in the current revision of the Brussels IIa Regulation.

The European Court of Human Rights and the Hague Child Abduction Convention: Prioritising Return or Reflection?

Over the last four decades the 1980 Hague Convention has provided for the prompt return of children to their State of habitual residence. But now that wrongful removals and retentions are most often carried out by primary carers, the majority of whom will be mothers, the instrument has come under increasing scrutiny, not least from the European Court of Human Rights. This article analyses the Grand Chamber judgments in Neulinger and X v. Latvia and considers how compliance with Article 8 ECHR should be achieved in the application of the Hague Convention; prioritising return or reflection? In so doing it also reflects on whether a summary return mechanism can continue to accord with twenty-first century expectations and norms.