Blog

In October 2023, standing outside the Peace Palace in The Hague, Ruth Dineen from FiLiA Hague mothers and I held a petition signed by over 37,000 people calling for the protection of mothers and children harmed by the Hague Convention.

When we handed over our petition, Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), stepped out to meet us. He listened and promised to try to do something.Later that day, inside the historic Peace Palace at the Special Commission meeting attended by all the member states of the Convention, he proposed the creation of a new Forum, one that would bring together all stakeholders to discuss domestic abuse, child welfare, and the Hague Convention. For the first time, survivors, advocates, judges, and government representatives would sit at the same table.When Ruth and I were invited to join the Steering Committee, it felt like a breakthrough, a rare chance for survivor voices to be heard at the heart of international law. But we quickly discovered how hard that would be.The first Forum was held in Sandton, South Africa in June 2024.

The committee included judges, government officials, and representatives for both survivors of domestic abuse and “left-behind parents.” For the first time, policy makers heard lived experience testimonies in person – raw, brave, and heart-stopping. The room fell silent. Even the hardest hearts softened as survivors shared how they had fled violence, only to be branded “abductor” and returned under the convention to harms way.For the first time, there was understanding. Christophe closed the meeting with a call to preserve the “Spirit of Sandton” and Brazil offered to host the next Forum. We left feeling cautiously optimistic. Read the HCCH report here. 

The Road to Brazil
We believed the next Forum, scheduled for Fortaleza in October 2025, would focus on solutions – real, practical change.But as planning progressed, the tone shifted. We learned there would again be no concrete next steps, conclusions or formal recommendations. The resistance to change, especially from certain European states, was palpable.We worked tirelessly for many months collecting, filming, and anonymising survivors’ testimonies to show at the Forum. These were powerful stories, brave mothers risking everything to protect their children.Yet, at the last minute, we were told the videos could not be part of the programme because the “left-behind parents” hadn’t had time to produce their own. We were devastated on behalf of the brave survivors who had shared their stories.I managed to negotiate with local organisers to play the videos in the main hall during lunch, but no official announcement was made. Few people came to watch. I sat there like it was a vigil – for the women and children the system continues to silence.

Inside the Forum: Polarised sides
The opening speeches in Brazil were passionate and full of hope for survivors. Brazilian government ministers and women’s rights leaders, including Maria da Penha, spoke powerfully about ending violence against women and reforming the Hague system.But as the sessions unfolded, we lurched between two seemingly diametrically opposing views of abduction – some speakers claimed all removals were “wrongful.” and dismissed survivors’ experiences as “strategies.” Then on the other side academics, advocates and victim survivors showed the other side – that mothers were taking the children to keep them safe from harm.Of course – both scenarios are in fact true. Jessica Raffel from ISS Australia spoke about how the debate has been polarised with blanket statements – All abduction is wrong/ harmful or the opposite – they are all protective. She said both must co-exist in a protective framework. She said this isn’t possible in a short, summary hearing and that courts need to be alert to the complex dynamics of DA.Experts from across the world, from Canada to Japan to Australia, highlighted the same concern – that Courts are putting victims at risk by making quick, summary decisions without fully investigating abuse.

The Guide to Good Practice: urgent revision needed
On the final day of the meeting there were sessions on the Guide to Good Practice on Art 13b Grave risk of harm, Brazil’s Boni Soares, made a strong and well-reasoned case for updating the Guide. The other panellists, however, focused mainly on how the Guide had been cited in practice and called for it to gain wider recognition, rather than reflecting on its limitations with regards to Domestic Abuse.When I asked whether there had been any consultation with those who have lived experience of the Convention’s application, the responses were revealing. Several participants said that “such and such a judge” had professional experience or had quoted from victims, but the clear answer was no—there had been no proper consultation with parents, survivors, or frontline domestic abuse specialists.This lack of meaningful consultation is deeply concerning. The Guide has been drafted almost entirely from a judicial and legal perspective, without the input of those most affected by its implementation. Unsurprisingly, the atmosphere in the session was highly defensive of the existing Guide, even though many state’s laws on Domestic Abuse and Coercive control have updated since it’s publication.We have published a briefing on the Guide to Good Practiceon Article 13(1)(b) – Grave Risk of Harm with a Domestic Abuse perspective. Our Lived Experience group had provided thoughtful comments on the Guide, which we integrated alongside insights from lawyers and academics. The purpose of our paper was to highlight the urgent need to revise the Guide so that it properly reflects current understanding of domestic abuse, trauma, and the lived reality of these cases. We hope that this revision will be allowed to take place as soon as possible.

Are there any next steps? 
In the final session, Christophe Bernasconi rode back a little on his initial statement that wrongful removal is a form of violence but fell short of acknowledging the fact that sometimes taking a child is an act of protection and serves to prevent further harm to a child.Unfortunately, until there is an acceptance that abductions can be both harmful and protective depending on the case, it’s going to be hard to move forward and create a framework and system that protects families.Getting the principle right is important because impacts on the whole system – from why taking parents don’t get legal aid, to why there’s no proper fact finding hearing to why they put in place so called ‘Protective Orders’ that don’t work to why they don’t check up on children after they’ve been returned.If you believe that the ‘Abduction’ was wrong and harmful it all makes perfect sense, but on the other hand if you identify the abduction as protective it all clearly needs improvement.

In short – there is no specific schedule for follow-up actions from the Forum. The only confirmed plan is that the PB will report back to the HCCH governing body (CGAP) in 2026. There is no immediate decision on revising the Guide to Good Practice: any actual decision must come from CGAP so we must wait and hope. 

Back in the UK, there was no time to process it all. Our helpline was full of new safeguarding cases and mothers needing help with hardship and difficulties. Ultimately giving up is not an option, we need to fix this broken system, or we will be forever just reacting to crises every single day.

The Spirit of Sandton lives on, in the determination of those who refuse to be silenced. We are truly grateful to all of the incredible survivors who have come forward to share their experience in order to stop this happening to the next generation. We have left Brazil more determined than ever to build a fairer system, one that truly protects victims and children from harm. Because until that happens, our work is far from done.