Campaign Update

“Sometimes going back [to Brazil] is the only way to ensure that they will stay alive and to protect their children. If you are in a place where you don’t have a support system, you don’t have a network, you don’t know that you can stay there … they can’t file a complaint. They are stigmatised by the system, by the government, by the courts, by the state.”

Sally Jackson in conversation with Janaina Albuquerque of Revibra Europa, a network of legal experts and psychologists who provide advice and support to Brazilian victims of domestic abuse. They have considerable experience of Hague cases, and of the additional barriers faced by migrant women in negotiating the court hearing and the aftermath. We’re delighted to be working in partnership with them – thank you for your time and expertise Janaina!

Listen to the podcast:

Submission to UNSR VAWG.

Reem Alsalem, the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls recently completed a fact-finding visit to the UK. Our submission included the stories of two Hague mothers whose lives and freedom of movement are now entirely controlled by their abusive ex-partners, enabled by international law.

“I fear that freedom from his abuse may never come. If there are children involved, abusers know that they can still manipulate and control our lives through the legal system, finances, and the children themselves.”

Our proposals included:

• an automatic right to legal aid for ‘taking parents’
• mandated training in domestic abuse for both judges and lawyers dealing with Hague cases. 
• changes to the implementation of the Convention in the UK to ensure that the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 is compatible with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. This particularly relates to the definition of domestic abuse, and the recognition that children living with domestic abuse are victims in their own right.

The submission is here.

Our thanks to the mothers who shared their stories with us.

UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls Reem Alsalem has declared violence against women a ‘national threat’ in the UK. That includes the ‘institutional violence’ of the courts. In a statement at the end of a 10-day visit to the country she goes on to say:

‘Entrenched patriarchy at almost every level of society, combined with a rise in misogyny that permeates the physical and online world, is denying thousands of women and girls across the UK the right to live in safety, free from fear and violence.’

FiLiA Hague Mothers came in to being almost two years ago, inspired by a chance meeting with a formidable Hague mum, and the realisation that the well-intentioned Hague Abduction Convention is being used to further control domestic abuse victims. That understanding led to a conversation with FiLiA’s CEO Lisa-Marie. And that conversation resulted in the subsequent launch of our campaign to end the injustices of the Convention, specifically for mothers and children who are victims of domestic abuse.

The campaign is now active, and increasingly influential, across the world. All participants contribute their knowledge, time, and passion on a voluntary basis and, other than support from FiLiA to set up and maintain our website, we remain unfunded.

Our members include Hague mothers, lawyers, academics, domestic abuse professionals, women’s rights and children’s rights experts, psychologists, media specialists, and feminist activists. We advocate for victim/survivors, raise awareness through presentations, webinars, media articles and research papers, create resources for mothers and professionals, lobby politicians, and signpost mothers to both formal and informal survivor-led support groups.

We have grown organically – and somewhat randomly! Now we need to establish a sustainable and democratic structure that will enable all participants to contribute fully, and ensure that we remain true to FiLiA’s mission: to build sisterhood and solidarity; amplify the voices of women: and defend women’s human rights. Soooo…

1. We have expanded our International Strategy Group to include Hague mothers from three continents and a wider range of international expertise.
2. We have created a ten-strong Mother’s Expert Group who will advise on strategic decisions and initiate actions in their own right.
3. All members have been asked to commit to the FiLiA values, foregrounding the importance of sisterhood and solidarity.
4. The three ‘country-based’ members’ groups have expanded to reflect our growing international membership. To enable greater autonomy and democratic participation, all members will have an equal say in deciding what actions need to be taken in their part of the world. The first set of what will be regular, minuted meetings, take place this month.
5. We are already part of a formidable network of grassroots groups and NGOs with expertise in a broad range of issues including, women’s and children’s rights, women’s access to justice, and male violence against women & girls. We are now working to formalise our international partnerships and strengthen these – mutually-beneficial – connections.
6. We are also expanding our informal network of expert supporters; individuals who signed our Open Letter to the Hague Special Commission, those who have reached out to us to suggest other contacts or to provide advice, and those working in related fields but who share our desire for justice.
7. Last but not least, the fabulous Sally Jackson (FiLiA’s chair of trustees, MVAWG Lead and Safeguarding Lead) has agreed to oversee the HM campaign under the auspices of FiLiA’s MVAWG workstream. Her experience and expert guidance will be invaluable.Thanks, as ever, for all your contributions.

Especial thanks to the many Hague mothers who are working with us to end the injustices of the Hague. You continue to inspire us with your courage and determination.

A BBC documentary – ‘Mums on the Run: failed by the Family Court’ revealed the desperation of mothers who flee to Northern Cyprus in an attempt to safeguard themselves and their children. In doing so, they leave their families and friends, their homes, and their jobs. Many end up in poverty, trapped in the country they have fled to. They are criminalised, labelled as abductors. 

This article, co-authored by HM team members Dr Elizabeth Dalgarno, Dr Rima Hussein, and Ruth Dineen, looks at what has gone so wrong in our courts that exile is seen as a solution.

Last October 10th and 11th, we stood outside the Eighth Hague Special Commission meeting,  handing out a copy of our Hague Mothers’ booklet to the 100+ delegates as they arrived. We asked them to work with us to end the abuse and heartache suffered by mothers and children whose only crime is ‘being a victim of domestic violence in a foreign country’.

The booklet is dedicated to loving mothers across the world whose lives have been decimated by the Hague Abduction Convention. 

Heartfelt thanks to everyone who contributed.

Download the Hague Mothers Booklet here.

Narkis Golan was a protective mother who took her Hague Convention case all the way to the US Supreme Court. Seven judges found unanimously that both she and her young son were victims of severe and persistent domestic violence at the hands of the child’s Italian father. And that her son would be at ‘grave risk’ if forced to return to Italy.

Nonetheless, the lower court Hague judge continues to ignore both the Supreme Court judgment, and allegations that the abuse has not stopped. A report by NBC News in June 2023, stated that physical violence has been targeted at the child during court ordered visitations, despite there being an order of protection against the child’s father. 

Unconscionably, it seems that the judge intends to force the child back to Italy, away from the loving aunt who has cared for him since his mother’s untimely death, and in to a situation of grave risk and continuing trauma. The court will convene in less than a week.

Please sign and share our petition which calls on President Giorgia Meloni and the Italian Government to protect Narkis’s son, and retract the Hague petition presented by this known abuser. 

An overview of the injustices of the Hague Convention by trauma expert (and US team member) Louise Godbold for Culturico.

Read the article here.

Image is shared from article

Hague expert and activist (and HM Australia team member) Gina Masterton was recently asked about the Convention. She has given us permission to publish her eloquent and comprehensive reply:

I’m not opposed to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention (HCAC) not being amended, as it works well for its original purpose i.e. cases involving fathers abducting their children over international borders. Those are the only cases that the HCAC should be applied to. It should NOT be invoked and enforced against mothers who flee abuse perpetrated against them and/or their children by their child’s father or his family, or in cases where children have witnessed abuse perpetrated by their father or his family against their mother.

However, if the HCAC is to continue to be applied in domestic violence related cases where protective mothers have rescued themselves and their child from abuse, then the exceptions embedded in the HCAC must be amended to focus on protecting abused mothers and children, not on persecuting them.

First: the exception allowing children to have a voice about who they live with must be made more available. The test must not be so hard to satisfy, children’s feelings and experiences must be genuinely listened to, and their testimony must not be so easily disregarded by judges. 

Second: no Indigenous / First Nations child is to ever be returned by any court under the HCAC.

Third: the best interests of individual children are to be taken into account by Hague judges in each case involving evidence of domestic abuse/violence perpetrated by a father against a mother/child. Also, regarding the grave risk of harm/intolerable situation exception, judges must be made aware that abuse or violence committed against a mother or her child by the child’s father is equivalent to a grave risk of harm or intolerable situation for that child. In these circumstances, no return order for a child must be made by any judge or judges. 

Fourth: once an exception is evidenced and accepted by the court, no ‘discretion’ can be used by Hague judges to override this defence and make a return order anyway. The ‘discretionary power’ of judges is often used to violate the civil and human rights of women and children, and the rule of law. It must be limited.

Fifth: any independent children’s lawyer (ICL) appointed must be approved by both parents or their legal representatives. In so many cases ICLs take the side of the Central Authority since, in most countries, they are paid by the government.

Sixth: all respondent mothers in Hague cases must have their legal fees paid for by the government of the country that is hearing the Hague application and they should be able to chose their own legal representatives. Both parties should have their legal fees paid for by the government.

Seventh: no conditions, promises or undertakings are to be attached by judges to any return orders ever. They are unenforceable and put mothers who return with their children in danger of poverty, homelessness, isolation, further abuse and even death at the hands of their abusive ex partners. 

Eighth: no country should be allowed to jail a mother for rescuing herself and her child from abuse. The HCAC is an administrative law, not a criminal law. 

Ninth: if mothers do have to return to dangerous situations with their children, they should be afforded all the protection that the authorities in that country can offer, with free follow-up by social workers, medical professionals, community assistance and government help. Women who are not legal residents/citizens of a country they have fled from, and now have to return to, should be afforded all the resources available to refugees in any country, as they are in fact, refugees in their abuser’s country, returning to no home, no money, no employment, no friends/family, to face the abuser they fled from. 

Tenth: no domestic family court should be permitted to grant a father full legal and physical custody of a child in a mother’s absence. No parental orders should be made until the mother returns (if she returns) and, in those cases, a mother should never have less than 50% legal and physical custody of the child. Violation of such orders by a father should be dealt strictly by any court as a breach.

Mothers and their supporters were in The Hague today as delegates from all parts of the world arrived for the Eighth Meeting of the Special Commission on the practical operation of the Hague (HCCH) Child Abduction Convention.

The Convention was set up in 1980 to address civil aspects of cross-border child abductions. It aims to protect children by providing a system of cooperation between Contracting Parties and a procedure for the swift return of the child to their State of habitual residence. The Convention is based on the principle that nthe return of a wrongfully removed or retained child is in their interests, unless one of the exceptions applies, including the “grave risk” exception established in Article 13(1)(b). 

While originally it was primarily non-custodial fathers who abducted or retained their children abroad, nowadays in over 75% of the cases it is primary-carer mothers who are taking their children, mostly back to their country of origin, often in order to escape domestic abuse. 

This change of pattern involves inherent risks for a safe return of mothers and their children, in particular in situations when the ‘left behind’ father is a perpetrator of domestic abuse. 

These important matters will be addressed by the Special Commission meeting.

In the margins of the meeting, representatives of GlobalARRK and Hague Mothers, two charities working to support and safeguard mothers and children in these circumstances, handed a global #ProtectHagueVictims petition with over 37,000 signatures to the Secretary General of the HCCH, Dr Christophe Bernasconi. Receiving the petition, the Secretary General said that he did so ‘as an expression of respect and empathy for the mothers and families who have endured the pain and trauma of domestic violence’. He also committed ‘to listen, empathise, and understand the gravity’ of their experiences, and to remain available for discussions beyond the Special Commission meeting.

The petition was created by GlobalARRK in partnership with: FiLiA Hague Mothers; New Zealand Hague Collective; Ark of Hope, Australia; Hague Collective, US; Sanctuary for Families, US; Hague Mothers Japan; Maes de Haia, Brazil; Revibra, Europe/ Brazil; and Far From Home, India. The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls had also sent a letter to the HCCH regarding the operation of the Child Abduction Convention in cases involving domestic violence.

Mothers impacted by the Hague Abduction Convention, EU Hague Mothers and Pinay sa Holland – Gabriela, were also represented at the event.

Petition Link: www.change.org/ProtectHagueVictims

Media Contact: Ruth Dineen Hague@FiLiA.org.uk | Roz Osborne: roz@globalarrk.org