Announcing Hague Mothers – a FiLiA Legacy Project
Under The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980, a child is considered abducted if they are removed by one parent without the other parent’s consent. The motive is not relevant. Over 100 countries have signed the treaty.
The Convention was intended to deal with a parent taking their children across national borders without the permission of the other parent. It was particularly aimed at fathers. However, in over seventy percent of cases the legislation is being used against mothers, many fleeing domestic violence and sexual abuse. The cases are brought by the perpetrators of that violence with support from the state. The outcomes are invariably catastrophic for the abused victims and for their children.
The Hague Mothers FiLiA Legacy Project aims to amplify the voices of the women who are victims of The Hague Convention, to raise awareness of the issues, and to work with lawyers, domestic violence experts, children’s organisations, women’s groups, and Hague victims to put right the injustices perpetuated by this legislation. Our initial focus is on the UK, USA and Australia.
The Hague Convention – what is it?
The Hague Convention Treaty of 1980 set out to protect a child if one parent takes them to another country and the ‘left behind’ parent objects. It is simple and direct, designed to ensure that the child is quickly returned to their place of ‘habitual residence’ – although what this means is not clearly defined. Most children who are subject to Hague Convention cases are returned within six weeks.
There are defences that can be used to make a case for not returning a child, but these are very limited. Domestic violence is not one of them.
What’s the problem?
Today, around 75% of the parents who are brought before the courts are mothers. And many of them are fleeing domestic violence, trying to get to safety in their home country with their child.
In a majority of cases, even when there is clear evidence of violence or criminality by the father, the law insists that the child must be returned.
As the child’s primary carer, most mothers return too - in spite of the very real risks to their safety. Their situation is now precarious in the extreme. They face an escalation of violence and abuse from the child’s father, and economic hardship and potential homelessness if they try to leave the relationship.
Labelled by the courts as a child abductor and kidnapper, mothers are branded a risk to their own children. Should there subsequently be a custody battle, as there often is, this puts them at a serious disadvantage in the custody case they will then have to fight in a foreign court.
What happens next?
Against all the odds, mothers will invariably try to remain in the foreign country in order to be near their child and to have a hope of seeing them. But at least a quarter of these mothers have no support in the father’s country, no family, limited finances, no legal representation, and, depending on the jurisdiction, no visa to remain in the country or to work there.
They are left with no choice but to leave their child and go home alone. For many it will be years before they can even see their child again; some lose all contact.
And the child - who was supposed to be protected by The Hague Convention - lives with the abuser, potentially losing all connection with their maternal family, culture, heritage and even language.
The only alternative, a truly desperate one, is to go on the run with your child. A permanent outlaw.
Our series of podcasts will look in more depth at this legislation, at the work that is being done to attempt to ameliorate its injustices, at our changing understanding of the impact of domestic abuse on children who witness it, at the extent to which The Hague Convention rides roughshod over the rights of the child. And we’ll talk to mothers who live with the life-changing consequences of having a Hague case brought against them.