Right to Equality (R2E) is working in collaboration with FiLiA Hague Mothers (FHM) to challenge the harmful application of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in cases involving domestic abuse.
This campaign draws on survivor-led advocacy and feminist legal analysis to expose how the Hague Convention is routinely misapplied in ways that endanger mothers and children, criminalise victim-survivors, and prioritise procedural compliance over safety and human rights.
About the Campaign
The Hague Convention was designed to address international child abduction. In practice, however, it is frequently used against mothers fleeing domestic abuse, forcing children to be returned to unsafe environments and separating them from their primary carers.
Survivor-mothers are often treated as abductors rather than protectors. Allegations and evidence of domestic abuse are minimised or excluded, and courts rely on narrow legal frameworks that fail to account for coercive control, trauma, and the realities of abuse.
This harm would be significantly worsened by Clause 104 of the Crime and Policing Bill, which would make the retention of a child abroad after a permitted visit a criminal offence for the first time under the Child Abduction Act 1984. Parents, primarily mothers, could face up to seven years’ imprisonment, even where they are escaping domestic abuse, rape, or child abuse. This campaign seeks to ensure that child safety, equality, and human rights are placed at the centre of all Hague Convention proceedings.
Why This Matters
Clause 104 poses a grave and immediate risk to survivors of domestic abuse and their children.
The proposed reform has not been properly debated in Parliament. Its accompanying Equality Impact Assessment assumes that men and women are equally responsible for international child abduction and therefore concludes that no protected group would be disproportionately affected. This assumption is demonstrably incorrect.
Research and service-user data consistently show that international child abduction and retention cases are not gender-neutral. The majority involve primary-carer mothers, many of whom are fleeing domestic abuse, coercive control, or post-separation violence.
Critically, Clause 104 contains no clear exception for cases where a parent has fled violence, rape, or child abuse. In situations of real and imminent harm, parents often act urgently to protect their children and themselves. Without explicit safeguarding provisions, the law risks punishing survival rather than providing protection.
The consequences for children are severe. If a protective parent is prosecuted, children may be removed from their primary carer, returned to an alleged perpetrator of abuse, or left without a protective adult advocating for their safety. In some cases, children may be compelled to return to the UK alone, exposing them to further trauma and risk.
Without reform and accountability, the Hague Convention risks becoming a mechanism of further harm rather than protection.
Our Work
Right to Equality is calling for the removal of Clause 104 from the Crime and Policing Bill and for full parliamentary scrutiny of any proposed reform affecting international family law. Any law addressing child removal must include explicit safeguards and exemptions for cases involving domestic abuse, rape, child abuse, and other high-risk situations, supported by accurate and evidence-based equality and human rights impact assessments.
Alongside this, we are:
- Engaging with Members of the House of Lords and Parliament to raise urgent safeguarding and equality concerns
- Working with women’s organisations, domestic abuse services, and legal experts to evidence the real-world impact of Clause 104
- Challenging inaccurate and unsupported assumptions in the Equality Impact Assessment
- Amplifying survivor-centred and trauma-informed perspectives in public and policy debates
We are clear that justice cannot be served by measures that treat victims as offenders. The law must prioritise safety, fairness, and children’s welfare, rather than criminalising survival.