Use this category to archive news and views posts
The bias that prevails in Hague courts, where domestic abuse is routinely minimised or dismissed, and mothers and children are disbelieved, is replicated in family courts worldwide.
This important paper from FHM member Dr Sonja Aleb-Karlsson (University College London) looks at the impact of these systemic failings on children in England and Wales.
Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law
Thanks to the funding we have received from Treebeard Trust, we are absolutely delighted to welcome Krisztina Les as our new P/T Administrator and Project Support person.
Krisztina is a social worker with extensive experience addressing violence against women. She has worked for several years with NGOs focusing on women’s rights, including supporting survivors of domestic violence through crisis intervention and individual case management. She has also played a key role in organising events and campaigns to raise awareness about gender-based violence and reproductive rights. Passionate about feminist principles, Krisztina has delivered training workshops for volunteers and social workers and collaborated with international partners to advocate for systemic change. You can contact her at AdminHague@FiLiA.org.uk
Ruth was recently invited by the podcast team ‘Inciteful Sisters’ to talk about FHM and the problems of the Hague Abduction Convention.
Please help us raise awareness by sharing widely. Every new person who gets to hear about the brutal impact of the Convention on mothers and children is a potential ally. You can listen on Podbean, Youtube, or Spotify.
Thank you! And thanks to Bex and Jane for the invitation.
We are absolutely delighted (an understatement) that Treebeard Trust will be funding a part-time administrator for the next year, and have also offered informal and ongoing advice to help us with our campaign. The Trust also fund organisations such as Rights of Women and the Centre for Women’s Justice so we are in very good company indeed.
Having their generous support will significantly expand our scope and increase our efficacy. In particular we have been asked to demonstrate progress against four areas of work:
Given the expertise and commitment available to us through our members and partners, we can certainly do that. Thank you Treebeard for your faith in us.
Lisa Ogawa, co-founder Hague Mothers Japan has sent us this report about media accounts of ‘child abduction’ and the growing feminist solidarity which is challenging this one-sided narrative.
Some three months ago, in May 2024, Japan’s Diet (parliament) passed a bill introducing joint parental authority. While few oppose voluntary joint parental authority, many feared the possibility of court-mandated joint parental authority, leading to widespread opposition. As this legislation was debated, DV survivors and supporters began to raise their voices, primarily on social media but also through on-site protests. The movement grew, with a petition to stop the bill gathering more than 240,000 signatures.
‘The solidarity between DV survivors, supporters, and allies, which had formed in opposition to the bill, re-emerged in response to the programme announcement. Having come together to fight for our rights, women will not easily be silenced.’
Lisa’s report on how a TV documentary announcement sparked social media uproar in Japan:
On August 18, 2024, a post by Houdou Tokushu (“News Special”), a major live news and documentary program on TBS, one of Japan’s leading commercial television networks, drew widespread attention. The post read:
‘On August 24: MBS Child Abduction. Due to the breakdown of relationships between parents, cases of one parent abducting their child continue to occur. How do children, suddenly separated from one parent, feel and cope with their lives? This program will explore the reality of abduction, featuring the story of a child who reunited with their father after 10 years.’
The original post included a link to a short video teaser for the upcoming program.
In the teaser, several Japanese individuals shared their experiences of ‘child abduction’. The Executive Director of BACHOME (Bring Abducted Children Home) also appeared, visibly emotional, as he recounted how his wife ‘abducted’ their six-year-old son from the USA. (The separation occurred before Japan ratified the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction.)
However, after facing a torrent of negative comments, the original post was deleted and re-uploaded the following day without the video link. This action only intensified the backlash from domestic violence survivors, their supporters, and many others who saw the post as a case of misinformation perpetuated by a small but influential group.
Here are some of the reactions:
Following the programme announcement, a DV survivor’s ‘X’ account called for a social media protest on August 18, using hashtags like #DontLabelItAbduction, #ChildRelocationNotAbduction, and #NoParentChildSeparation.
Despite being announced less than seven hours in advance, the protest quickly gained traction, with #ConcernedAboutNewsSpecial generating 4,944 posts.
To understand why a post by a TV programme sparked such widespread outrage in Japan, it’s crucial to consider the realities of single-parent households, family law, and DV policies, rather than the misinformation spread by international media, invariably influenced by fathers’ rights activists from the West.
Here are some facts:
The documentary was aired on August 24th as originally scheduled. However, the company appear to have significantly altered the content. For instance, the report by the NPO in question was omitted from the program, and the reporter made a point of clarifying that escape from domestic violence is not ‘abduction’. We believe these changes were in response to our campaign. Nonetheless, significant concerns remain regarding the accuracy and objectivity of the programme, as mentioned above.
The strength and impact of the opposition to the initial post about the documentary didn’t appear out of thin air. It is a sign of growing solidarity and visibility among DV survivors in Japan.
Some three months ago, in May 2024, Japan’s Diet (parliament) passed a bill introducing joint parental authority (Note: This is not joint custody legislation; see this article for more details). While few oppose voluntary joint parental authority, many feared the possibility of court-mandated joint parental authority, leading to widespread opposition. As this legislation was debated, DV survivors and supporters began to raise their voices, primarily on social media but also through on-site protests. The movement grew, with a petition to stop the bill gathering more than 240,000 signatures.
Although the legislation passed with the ruling party’s support, the opposition became so strong that the government was compelled to commit that joint parental authority wouldn’t be court-ordered if one parent refuses for valid reasons.
The solidarity between DV survivors, supporters, and allies, which had formed in opposition to the bill, re-emerged in response to the programme announcement. Having come together to fight for our rights, women will not easily be silenced.
We are sharing this open letter in solidarity with mothers across the world who are being failed by a justice system which is no longer fit for purpose.
‘Instead of protecting my children the system targeted me, the protective mother, branding me as an alienating mother without foundation and sentencing me to six months of suspended prison for refusing to hand over my children to their abuser. This sentence forces me to comply with dangerous visitation rights or face imprisonment and loss of custody.’
‘Hundreds of mothers across France face similar injustices, our voices are drowned out by a system that protects abusers over victims. I appeal to the international community, human rights organizations, and world leaders to provide asylum for French mothers and children who need protection from a system that endangers their lives.’
‘My plea is simple: we seek safety, justice, and the right to live free from fear. We call upon you to recognize our plight and advocate for systemic changes that prioritize victim protection over perpetrators’ rights. Our fight is for the future of countless children who deserve to grow up in a world where their rights and well-being are safeguarded.’
Please share the Open Letter to help raise awareness of this appalling injustice, one which is replicated across the world.
Image is shared from A l’Assemblée nationale, “l’appel des 500 mamans” contre l’inceste avec Carla Bruni | AFP Images
Patricia Alvarez of The Hague Papers reports on a potentially groundbreaking declaration by the Brazilian Government – one which could be a first step towards safeguarding victims of domestic violence, both mothers and children, who are caught up in Hague proceedings.
Read the article on The Hague Papers here.
The image is reproduced from their article.
An historic Forum on Domestic Violence and the Operation of Article 13(1)(b) was held in South Africa last month (18-21 June 2024). We believe and hope that this unprecedented event will mark a turning point in the implementation of the Convention. Our sincere thanks to Secretary-General Christophe Bernasconi and his colleagues at the HCCH for organising the Forum, and for enabling mothers’ voices to be heard for the first time. It was powerful and profoundly moving.
The whole event was also an inspiring example of the global sisterhood in action.
Fifteen FiLiA Hague Mothers (FHM) members, advisors and partners attended in person, the majority of them as presenters and panel members; others presented online; many contributed to our expert papers that were circulated to attendees; Hague mothers shared their stories; volunteers and staff from FHM, GlobalARRK and Revibra live-tweeted key sessions; online attendees submitted questions and amplified our social media accounts. Every one of you helped to make a difference.
In his opening address, Secretary-General Bernasconi offered the hope that the Forum was ‘just a beginning’. The Brazilian Government’s offer to host a follow-up Forum in 2025 has made that hope a reality. In the interim, and with your help, we will continue to do all we can to raise awareness of the injustices caused by the Convention in cases of domestic violence and to advocate for those affected.
When we formally launched FiLiA Hague Mothers in 2022, we set out to ‘build an international movement for justice’. That international movement came together in South Africa last month. Thank you to every single one of you who made that possible. Together we will make change happen.
A strong opening session at the Johannesburg forum with remarks from Elsabe Schoeman, Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria; John Jeffery, Deputy Minister of Justice, South Africa; and Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH).
For me, the remarks spoke to the gravity of the issue that we are here to address. We were told it is going to be a hard four days.
The ‘landmark’ nature of this huge, interdisciplinary forum was stressed by Dr. Bernasconi. He referred to the moment as ‘truly historic’ as representatives from all perspectives (legal, academic, judicial, women who have fled intimate partner violence, DV advocates, psychological experts, left behind parents, Central Authorities, NGOs and researchers) come together for a crucial dialogue.
He reflected on the journey that led us to this forum. It was through emails from domestic violence survivors and their advocates that he became aware of problems with The Hague Convention when it comes to women fleeing intimate partner violence. Roz Osborne and Ruth Dineen were named as two of the individuals who convinced him of the need for a ‘dialogue among many voices’, in order that continuing, meaningful evolution of the Convention can occur. He said that at the time the Convention was established, gender based violence was not taken into account. He said that now, too often, we hear of women being ‘Hagued’ and that he is disturbed by this phrase. He believes that the convention needs to evolve. To be effective it must be inclusive, it must evolve. Hence this forum.
He stressed the challenge faced over the next days. The program is rich and designed to engage, but the issue is hard and complex. He urged participants to maintain a safe and respectful environment in order that the dialogue be productive, fruitful, and enforce understanding. It is his hope that at the end of the day we all have the same goal: the appropriate use of The Hague Convention.
For those of us who work with women fleeing domestic violence, the conversation got hard very quickly today.
We know that mothers who risk life and limb to extricate themselves and their children from abusive homes are not abductors, but protectors.
Those of us with long experience accompanying women in situations of intimate partner violence know that mothers are between a rock and a hard place.
In every country they face enormous barriers to leaving their batterers. It takes massive courage to leave an abusive man. It’s terrifying. Women turn to the courts in good faith, too often to find their situations treated with indifference.
Too often to find themselves abandoned and opposed by the very organizations with a mandate to protect them and their children.
Their abusers are rarely effectively sanctioned and restrained by their own domestic courts, leaving them as sitting ducks.
For such mothers, fleeing across international borders with their child or children is a desperate last resort.
It is hard to hear these acts of desperation and courage framed as acts of violence.
It’s hard to hear mothers chastised for ‘taking matters into their own hands,’ when it is precisely the lack of protection in their own jurisdictions that leads to the very difficult decision to flee the country.
It is hard to see the power dynamics of the abusive relationship, and a patriarchal society, rendered invisible. The words ‘power’ and ‘control’ were infrequently used, if at all. How is it that abusive men get to run the show? How is it that women and children are made to pay the price for men’s violence? For what other crime are victims forced to stay in contact with the perpetrator? These are questions we need to be asking.
The afternoon session, “Lived experiences of abduction cases involving DV” was profound, honest, brave and riveting. It went off like a bomb in the room, exploding any safe intellectual distance from the subject. We heard voice after voice after voice of abused mothers who have been revictimized, first by the courts, then by the Hague Convention.
Some mothers appeared by video. Some came in person. All spoke at incredible cost to themselves in order that we might be moved in our hearts to recognize the plight of the battered mother and take action to protect her and her children.
Why is it such a big ask?
Some of the words I heard today from ‘Hagued’ mothers:
“It was never about my son. It was all about power and control over me.”
“Women are encouraged to leave, but then set straight back.”
“It’s the strength of the mother that causes her to fight.“
“What is the line that needs to be crossed in order for a woman to get protection?”
“If there are children, they know they can still control us.“
“The safety of children depends on the courts believing mothers.”
“‘Grave risk of harm?’ These are active war zones.”
“Men who abuse women should not be able to dictate where the victims of their abuse live.”
“It is clear a war is being waged against mothers, and the battlefield is the Hague Convention.”
“These cases are not outliers.”
Here are some of the points that stood out for me today:
A man can win custody of a child even though he has
a) kept his pregnant partner in a shed
b) stopped to do a drug deal on the way to the hospital when his pregnant partner is in labour
c) beaten the mother of his child.
It is not necessarily traumatic for a child not to have a relationship with two parents. It is essential to have one solid attachment.
It is harmful to separate a child from his or her primary attachment.
Abuse is not linear, it is not always physical, and there is not always physical evidence to point to.
Domestic violence amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment of women. It is a human rights issue.
What about the human rights of mothers? Do mothers have a right to lives of safety? Do we have obligations to mothers in their own right? It’s not only a matter of the impact on the kids.
Training in intimate partner violence must include understanding abusive men’s tactics, which include counter-allegations, parental alienation claims, and accusing their partners of having mental health problems and being unfit mothers.
Women who are doing everything in their power to protect their children are quite unjustly being named as criminals. ‘Taking’ mothers are criminalized and stigmatized.
The options for women are to stay in the country and take the abuse, or flee and be labelled a criminal and an abductor.
Migrant women are particularly vulnerable to criminalization.
Some of the words I heard today:
“How much risk is acceptable when it comes to women and children’s lives? How much abuse is too much abuse? How much is acceptable? Where is the line?”
“The Hague Convention is the worst human rights violation I’ve ever seen. Maybe it worked 40 years ago, but it’s not working now. The Hague Convention is not fit for purpose.”
“The convention is now being used as a tool to abuse victims. Women are being hung like witches in the Salem witch trials.”
“I would like to see a revolution come out of this conference.”
The Johannesburg Forum has put the plight of ‘Hagued Mothers’ before the world.
The forum showed us that we have at hand all the evidence, expertise and goodwill required to turn this situation around.
But it seems to me we haven’t yet grasped the power structure. Until we start to recognize and confront the patriarchal power structure bearing down upon women’s lives, this injustice will continue. Because we don’t know how to read it. Failing to see it, we will be unable to stop it.
Men’s abuse of women via The Hague Convention is just another form of male violence against women, albeit a particularly cruel form.
Until we start to recognize the fundamental rights of women and begin to protect them as women, and in their central role as mothers, these injustices will continue.
“Men their rights and nothing more; women their rights and nothing less.” –Susan B. Anthony.
In a hugely significant interview for Uruguayan newspaper La Diaria, one of the originators of the treaty Judge Elisa Pérez-Vera told journalist Patrícia Álvares:
“If I had to write it today, I would think that one of the circumstances that judges can take into account when affirming that there is an exception to the return of the child to the place of habitual residence, is precisely the existence of an abuser, of a father who exercises gender violence on the mother, and normally also in a vicarious way, on the abducted child.”
Pérez-Vera also acknowledged the lack of equality of arms for mothers forced to fight for custody in a foreign country, even before court costs are taken in to account:
“Indeed, litigating in one’s own country, before one’s own court, has an extra bonus of advantage over the foreigner. I think xenophobia is latent in many of us, even if we don’t realise it, even if we believe we are not xenophobic, in the end, there is more tendency to believe the national than the foreigner. I think it works at all levels. Not only before a judge but also before the police, before any institution. Let’s think: the national plays at home. It is like football. Playing at home is always an advantage.”
We very much hope that attendees at the Pretoria Forum (June 19-21) which will consider issues of domestic abuse and the Hague Convention, will take account of this thoughtful and important interview. Mothers and children who are victims of abuse need to be safeguarded by the Convention, not further abused.
Our thanks to La Diaria for permission to republish, and to Patrícia Álvares for the original article and the English translation. Patrícia Álvares can be contacted via The Hague Papers website.
Image is shared from the original article.