Conflicts of EU courts on child abduction: the reality of Article 11(6)-(8) Brussels IIa proceedings across the EU

Citation

Beaumont P, Walker L & Holliday J (2016) Conflicts of EU courts on child abduction: the reality of Article 11(6)-(8) Brussels IIa proceedings across the EU. Journal of Private International Law, 12 (2), pp. 211-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2016.1206708

Abstract
This article contains the final findings from a research project funded by the Nuffield Foundation and conducted by the authors on “Conflicts of EU Courts on Child Abduction”. Such “conflicts” were deliberately created by the EU legislature when it created a power in Article 11(6)-(8) of the Brussels IIa Regulation for the courts of the habitual residence to insist on the return of a child that has been abducted after a court in the State where the child was abducted to has refused to return the child on the basis of one of the exceptions to the duty to return provided for in Article 13 of the Hague Child Abduction Convention 1980. It will reveal how infrequently used and largely ineffective the Article 11(6)-(8) system is and will make proposals for law reform in the current revision of the Brussels IIa Regulation.

Keywords
international family law; child abduction; intra-EU cases; Brussels IIa Regulation; Hague Child Abduction Convention; gender of abducting parent; right of a child to be heard; right of parents to be heard; grave risk of harm; child’s objections to return; consent; acquiescence

Journal
Journal of Private International Law: Volume 12, Issue 2

People

Professor Paul Beaumont

Professor of Private International Law, Law

Dr Jayne Holliday

Lecturer in Private International Law, Law