“I didn’t have a chance”: perceptions of the attitudes and roles of legal professionals for women involved in Hague international child abduction cases

Figures & data

Table 1. Women survivor participants.

Alias and approximate age at the time of interview:	Children and their approximate ages at the time of interview:
WS1—early 40s	One child aged 9
WS2—late 30s	One child aged 3
WS3—early 30s	One child aged 2
WS4—late 40s	Two children aged 18 and 17
WS5—early 30s	Two children aged 9 and 11
WS6—early 30s	One child aged 7
WS7—50	One child aged 8
WS8—early 30s	Once child aged 9
WS9—early 30s	One child aged 6
WS10—mid 40s	Two children aged 5 and 6

Table 2. Hague lawyer participants.

Alias	Profession, gender and approximate age:	Type of practice:
HL1	Paralegal (non-lawyer) Female—mid 40s	Legal assistant working for the Central Authority
HL2	Solicitor Female—late 40s	Women's only community legal centre
HL3	Barrister Male—mid 50s	Private Bar Family Law
HL4	Barrister Female—late 30s	Private Bar Family Law
HL5	Solicitor Female—early 40s	Private practice Family Law

Table 3. HL1’s pros and cons of Hague Convention lawyering.

Formalist-positivistic advantages	Informal-therapeutic disadvantages
It provides legal protection for the “left behind parent”.	The associated legal expenses associated with litigating such matters in foreign courts.
The courts afford Hague matters priority in the litigation system (compared with a general parenting matter under the Family Law Act 1975—in Australia).	The emotional distress to families.
The expertise of judicial officers that manage Hague matters provides expertise and expedience (this is certainly the case in Queensland where there are only several judges who manage Hague matters, and have therefore built up knowledge and expertise in these matters over time).	Generally speaking, there is no public funding (read: Legal Aid) for “abducting parents” in defending these types of applications—so they end up being self-funded or trying to obtain a pro bono legal representative.
It provides a forum by which the child's views and wishes can be considered (where appropriate).	The risks associated with the abducting parent returning to the “removing country”—that is, the threat of being charged with abduction related offences (the Australian authorities have no control over how foreign authorities elect to respond in this regard).
It provides an opportunity to avoid a litigation process wherever possible (court process v mediation—a negotiated outcome v trial).	The abducting parent returning to a country where they have no form of support or assistance—for example, accommodation, accessing legal advice/support, where domestic and family violence issues, and so on exist.
There is an International Hague Network Judges group where judges across different countries can liaise with each other as needed.	Possible immigration/visa issues for the returning parent that need to be resolved.
Most countries that are signatories to the Hague Convention have a level of sophistication in their legal systems which facilitate the proper intent and application of the Hague Convention.	Where a parent elects not to return with the child to the removing country—the obvious distress this creates for the family.