The Silent Epidemic

It's unfortunate that there are some people who are quick to take sides when an event like an International Parental Child Abduction (IPCA) takes place. Most of these people have no idea about the facts behind each case & most of them have no access to the evidence that surrounds each case.

Both sides just seem to jump to a conclusion based on nothing more than their own ideological views.

It is a fact that about 90% of abductions from countries like Australia to countries that are signatories to The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abductions (Convention) are carried out by mothers.

It is also a fact that about 90% of abductions from countries like Australia to non-Convention signatory countries are carried out by fathers.

Around the world, many thousands of children are abducted across international borders every year by one of their parents. IPCA has become such a large phenomenon that it is now referred to as "The Silent Epidemic".

If we listen to arguments that are being put forward in several forums at the moment, all the mothers who are doing this must be fleeing abusive relationships &/or protecting the children from predatory fathers. If we follow the same logic, then all the fathers who are doing this must also be fleeing abusive relationships &/or protecting the children from predatory mothers.

None of this makes sense. None of the research bears it out either.

The truth is that children are abducted across international borders by one of their parents for many reasons. These include either a belief that some form of abuse has taken place when it hasn’t (towards either the parent or the child or both); some form of abuse has actually taken place; major cultural &/or religious differences exist between the parents, or there has been a breakdown in a relationship in which there are children & one parent wants to return to the security & familiarity of their own family in another country.

The common theme that seems to underpin the majority of abductions though is that the abducting parent is hoping to find a legal jurisdiction that they feel will be more sympathetic to their attempts to have custody of the child than the country they have abducted the child from.

This is the very thing the Convention is designed to overcome & it is the reason why the vast majority of children who are abducted from one signatory state (country) to another are returned promptly when they are located. This is the stated intent of the Convention.

The Convention strives to maintain the legal jurisdiction of the country the child was located in as the one that is best placed to decide on issues of a child's custody, & for access for the non-custodial parent.

There are only three circumstances under which a court presiding over a Convention application can decide to not return a child. The explanatory notes that were issued when the Convention was established more than 30 years ago state that the provisions that were designed o address those circumstances are meant to be interpreted as narrowly as possible to make sure the very strong foundations upon which the Convention are built are protected.

It is highly inappropriate for anyone to take any kind of law into their own hands &/or to unilaterally decide where a child should live when a relationship between two parents breaks down. If the parents aren't able to reach agreement on this important issue between themselves as part of their international legal responsibilities to protect their children's rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, then it becomes the role of an appropriate court in the jurisdiction in which the child is living, or what is called the child's 'country of habitual residence', to help make that decision either with both parents (through mediation if possible), or for them if mediation is unsuccessful.

No-one has a right to form up their own court; decide for themselves what evidence is admissible & what isn't; decide whether or not a witness is competent or incompetent, or to hand down a final judgment on a child's life - particularly one that involves taking that child to another country without the consent of the child's other parent.

In an increasing number of countries this is now a crime. In Australia it is a crime when parenting matters are before the courts when an abduction takes place. As with any other crime, people who commit these types of crimes must be prepared to accept the full consequences of their actions when they are caught. The same goes for anyone who conspires with them (or with others) to pervert the course of justice, & for anyone who aids & abets them before & after the event.

These are the same principles that apply to any other criminal act.

Our laws lay the foundations for the fundamental rules by which our societies live & our legal systems are there to make sure they are adhered to. If our laws aren’t obeyed, the whole fabric of our society falls apart. The most serious breach of our laws is Contempt of Court since this undermines the whole structure of our legal systems.

If any of us step outside this legal framework we need to be prepared to accept the consequences. However, history shows us time & time again that the same people who are so bold & brash when they break our laws are usually the first to claim that their case should be heard in another jurisdiction; claim extenuating circumstances when they are caught, and then plead for mercy when they are convicted & sentenced.

Distance: 60 km
Weather: Wet