International Child Abduction Enforcement Summary

Provided by Process Service Network, LLC
800-417-7623
http://www.processnet1.com/

Introduction
The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is a multilateral treaty, which seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of abduction and retention across international boundaries by providing a procedure to bring about their prompt return. The "Child Abduction Section" provides information about the operation of the Convention and the work of the Hague Conference in monitoring its implementation and promoting international co-operation in the area of child abduction.

Enforcement
Paramount to the enforcement process is the ability to determine the location of the abducted child at every stage of the proceedings, including pending judicial review, retrieval of the abducted child, and protection after the child has been returned. Where the return order needs to be served upon the respondent before coercive measures may be applied, consideration should be given to the possibility of serving it at the moment that the enforcement officer proceeds to enforcement.

Need for Competent Professionals
Problems can occur when judges, lawyers and other professionals are unfamiliar with the Hague return process. There is merit in a properly trained and educated specialist group of judges, lawyers, and support professionals undertaking this work so as to reduce delays and add integrity to the process.

Cooperative Efforts to Insure Safe Return
A court considering the return of a child should be provided, through the Central Authority or other appropriate channels, with information concerning the protective measures and services available in the requesting State, where this is needed to assist in securing the safe return of the child. To this end, courts are encouraged to make use of national, regional and international judicial networks and liaison judges and to seek the assistance of Central Authorities where appropriate.

Parties Present at Scene of Enforcement
Whoever is responsible for deciding who shall be present at the actual scene of enforcement (e.g., the court, the Central Authority, the enforcement officer) should carefully consider whether the presence of the applicant (parent) is likely to be helpful or whether there is a risk that it might instead complicate matters in the particular case.

Issues Which May Delay Enforcement
* The return order does not specify the exact details of the child’s handover or return, such as how it is to be effected, within what timeframe or the precise location in the State of the habitual residence to which the child should be returned.
* The lack of a response from authorities (including the police, enforcement officers and others involved in enforcement) to a request for enforcement or due to other unexplained delays by authorities when taking certain necessary steps.
• Several levels of legal challenge exist and it is not possible to enforce a return order until these have all been exhausted.
• In some legal systems a specific court order is required for each enforcement attempt.
• In some legal systems different authorizations, decisions and approvals are required before enforcement can take place and a requirement of formal service can cause further unnecessary delays between notice of enforcement and the implementation of enforcement. These authorizations, decisions and/or approvals ordering specific coercive measures, are subject to legal challenges independent of the return order itself, and such a legal challenge suspends enforcement.
• The child objects to being returned despite a return having been ordered and refuses to travel or cooperate.
• The abducting parent takes the child into hiding, either while return proceedings are pending or after a return has been ordered or removes the child to another country. The abducting parent engages in obstructive behavior to delay or avoid enforcement (e.g., refusing to reveal travel plans, changing travel plans, claiming moving difficulties, refusing to sign visa or passport applications).
• Pressure from the public and/or the media, or for fear of creating media interest or involvement.
• The abducting parent cannot re-enter the country of habitual residence (e.g., for immigration reasons or because of a criminal warrant) in a case where he or she is supposed to return with the child.
• Neither party can fund travel arrangements, afford accommodation, or other enforcement costs.
• At the actual scene of enforcement, when confronted with a situation of family crisis, the enforcement officer is not prepared to apply coercive measures.
* No communication is possible between the enforcement officer and the abducting parent and/or the child because of language problems. At the actual scene of enforcement, other actors involved (e.g., professional social workers) are reluctant to co-operate in coercive enforcement.

Solutions
The enforcement of rights in a cross-border family situation may involve many participants, such as the Central Authority, judges, bailiffs, social workers or other professionals. In the interest of an adequate solution to problems with the execution, the exchange of relevant information between the
professionals/bodies involved should be swift and effective.

Detailed information concerning the special circumstances of the case should be available easily to allow a sensitive dealing with the case, where necessary. Especially in cases where an abduction of the child has occurred before, or was threatened or feared by one of the parents, the professionals involved in the enforcement order should have access to background information in addition to the plain facts included in the actual order itself.

Safeguards, such as the surrender of passport or travel documents should be taken into consideration to avoid the risk of abduction. In cross-border contact cases the multinational, multicultural and multilingual backgrounds have to be taken into account and relevant information concerning sensitive matters should be made available to the bodies/professionals involved.

Nelson Tucker is CEO of Process Service Network, LLC, in Winnetka, California. His firm specializes in international service of process. He is an Associate Member of the San Fernando Valley Bar Association and the American Bar Association (ABA) where he serves as a Member of the Section on International Law, and Member of Private International Law Coordinating Committee, International Judicial Affairs Committee, and the U.N. and International Institutions Coordinating Committee.