HEx joins international coalition to submit Position Statement to Second Forum on Domestic Violence and the 1980 Child Abduction Convention – with a focus on the Operation of Article 13(1)(b)

Survivor-led Position Statement on the operation of the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention and the urgent need for reform

This is a survivor-led submission, prepared by a coalition of organisations whose founders have been directly affected by the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (HAC); we do not wish non-survivor led organisations to speak for us.

We argue that the Convention’s implementation often harms survivors of domestic abuse, particularly mothers who act to protect their children. While the Convention was designed to prevent wrongful cross-border child removals, its rigid application has been weaponised against those escaping violence. This coalition invokes international human rights instruments, including the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Istanbul Convention (the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), to assert their right to participate in legal reform processes that directly impact their lives.

Barriers to Forum participation and access to justice

While the Forum is nominally open and a small number of survivors were present at the 2024 Forum on Domestic Violence and the Operation of Article 13(1)(b), in general costs associated with travel and accommodation are prohibitive for many survivor-led organisations. Remote access allows only passive observation without speaking rights. These constraints highlight a systemic failure by the HCCH to facilitate equal participation. By contrast, professionals, government delegates, and many others receive institutional support. This imbalance contradicts basic principles of procedural fairness and participatory justice, reinforcing the systemic silencing of lived expertise in decision-making processes.

This lack of recognition of survivor perspectives has legal implications. The HCCH, under its Strategic Plan 2023–2028 and its founding Statute, holds a positive obligation to monitor the practical operation of the Convention and to facilitate inclusive and transparent participation. Failing to include survivor perspectives compromises the legitimacy and comprehensiveness of any findings or recommendations.

This submission therefore argues that the HCCH’s legitimacy depends on inclusive, transparent processes that centre survivor voices. Excluding those most harmed by the Convention undermines its credibility and violates commitments under its own policy framework. This coalition urges the encouragement of survivor-led participation through minimum procedural standards, to include:

1. Funded travel and accommodation for at least one representative per survivor-led organisation.

2. Guaranteed representation and speaking opportunities on all panels.

3. Full participation rights for remote attendees.

4. Equal stakeholder status in advisory and steering bodies.

5. Transparent inclusion of survivor contributions in all official documents.

These are presented not as optional reforms but as necessary guarantees for equality of arms and participatory justice under international law.

Recognition of Gendered Harms

This coalition calls for formal recognition of the gendered harms caused by application of the Convention. Forced separations between mothers and children cause deep psychological and physical trauma. In extreme cases this separation can even be taken to its extreme with what the coalition names “misometeristic filicide”, the murder of a child motivated by hatred of the mother. This term, rooted in the concept of coercive control and gender-based violence, is introduced as a necessary step toward legal recognition of a recurring but underacknowledged risk. Courts’ failure to consider these and other dangers under Article 13(1)(b) exposes survivors and children to preventable harm.

Recommendations for reform

To correct these systemic failings, this coalition proposes a set of survivor-informed legal and procedural reform, to include:

1. Domestic law primacy: Returns should not be ordered where the taking parent would qualify for protection under domestic violence laws in the refuge country; national legal frameworks recognising coercive control must take precedence. In England & Wales, for example, the 2021 Domestic Abuse Act recognises that a child is also a victim of domestic abuse if they see, hear or experience the effects of abuse; this should automatically result in refusal to return the child to where the perpetrator wishes them to be.

2. Rebuttable presumption of non-return:Where allegations of abuse exist, courts should not order a return unless thorough investigation of all evidence, including from professionals who know the child, shows these to be spurious.

3. Legal aid parity: Both parents must have equal access to means-tested or automatic legal aid in all jurisdictions.

4. Recognition of primary caregiving:Courts must identify the child’s primary caregiver and treat their safety and stability, including any risk of incarceration, as well as practical residence options, as central to the best-interest analysis.

Conclusion

The exclusion of survivor voices from the Hague Convention’s processes is not an oversight but a systemic failure that breaches principles of fairness, equality, and human rights. True reform requires the direct and meaningful involvement of survivors, not as subjects of policy, but as co-designers of it. This coalition concludes that operation of the Convention must not be reformed or even debated on behalf of survivors, but in partnership with them.

Coalition partners:

Anita Gera, Kim Tomlinson, Hague Explained CIC (England & Wales)

Angelina Maalue Avalon, Stop Violence Against Children (Denmark)

Chandler Katherine Stump, Write.Edit.Heal. (USA)