IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/lawfam/v37y2023i1pebac021..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Redressing the balance: how Australia’s approach under the Hague Abduction Convention is still endangering victims of domestic violence

Author

Listed:
  • Annabelle Gray
  • Miranda Kaye

Abstract

This article explores how Australian courts consider allegations of domestic violence under Article 13(1)(b) of the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. As is now well known, there has been a paradigm shift since the Convention’s introduction, which has seen the circumstances and underlying reasons for international child abduction change. Through an examination of Australian case law from the past 5 years, this article reveals the issues that taking mothers continue to face in Australian return proceedings and the concerning reality that the courts continue to prioritise a prompt return over the safety and well-being of women and children exposed to domestic violence. This is despite feminist legal scholars and activists demonstrating for over 20 years that domestic violence is not being adequately dealt with in return proceedings and calling for change. The article discusses how the huge inequality in legal representation for taking mothers and left-behind fathers adds to the imbalance in these matters. Unfortunately, the recent Hague Conference Guide to Good Practice in such cases is unlikely to affect any substantive change to redress that imbalance. Suggestions for ways to redress the balance between taking mothers and left-behind fathers are suggested.

Suggested Citation

  • Annabelle Gray & Miranda Kaye, 2023. "Redressing the balance: how Australia’s approach under the Hague Abduction Convention is still endangering victims of domestic violence," International Journal of Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(1), pages 1-021..
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:lawfam:v:37:y:2023:i:1:p:ebac021.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/lawfam/ebac021
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:lawfam:v:37:y:2023:i:1:p:ebac021.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/lawfam .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.