Parliamentary debate on International child abduction
Our response to a recent UK parliamentary debate on international child abduction, raising concerns that the discussion focused almost entirely on the perspectives of left-behind fathers while failing to consider the safety and wellbeing of victim-survivor mothers and children.
On 28 April an important debate took place in UK Parliament on international child abduction, led by MP Rachel Gilmour who was speaking on behalf of left-behind parents – predominantly fathers. She raised a number of their concerns including:
- a lack of international consistency in applying the Convention, referencing a Polish case where return decisions were reversed at appeal;
- the ‘creeping expansion of article 13(b) welfare arguments as a basis for refusing return’;
- the insufficient use of protection measures.
In addition, the issue of child maintenance was raised, with the suggestion that ‘any case in which there is a Hague Convention return order should not qualify for maintenance payments’.
We very much appreciate MP Lisa Smart’s contribution to the debate. This clarified the domestic abuse context which lies at the heart of the majority of abductions, including two cases in her constituency:
“It has long been argued—the evidence bears this out—that one of the convention’s most significant shortcomings is that it failed to anticipate that some so-called abductors could be domestic abuse victims fleeing their abusers. A parent—often but not always the mother—who escapes to this country to protect themselves and their children from violence should not find themselves faced with a legal mechanism that treats them as a wrongdoer. Yet that is precisely the situation too many find themselves in.”
Responding to the debate, the Minister for Consular Affairs Hamish Falconer, focused on the concerns raised by MP Rachel Gilmour but also acknowledged the impact of domestic abuse in these cases, albeit briefly.
We will be writing to contributors to the debate individually, and have also produced a formal statement in response to this debate, as have our partners GlobalARRK.
