纠正平衡:澳大利亚在《海牙绑架公约》下的做法如何仍在危及家庭暴力的受害者

IF 0.9 4区 社会学 Q3 FAMILY STUDIES International Journal of Law Policy and the Family Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1093/lawfam/ebac021
Annabelle Gray, Miranda Kaye
{"title":"纠正平衡:澳大利亚在《海牙绑架公约》下的做法如何仍在危及家庭暴力的受害者","authors":"Annabelle Gray, Miranda Kaye","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebac021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article explores how Australian courts consider allegations of domestic violence under Article 13(1)(b) of the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. As is now well known, there has been a paradigm shift since the Convention’s introduction, which has seen the circumstances and underlying reasons for international child abduction change. Through an examination of Australian case law from the past 5 years, this article reveals the issues that taking mothers continue to face in Australian return proceedings and the concerning reality that the courts continue to prioritise a prompt return over the safety and well-being of women and children exposed to domestic violence. This is despite feminist legal scholars and activists demonstrating for over 20 years that domestic violence is not being adequately dealt with in return proceedings and calling for change. The article discusses how the huge inequality in legal representation for taking mothers and left-behind fathers adds to the imbalance in these matters. Unfortunately, the recent Hague Conference Guide to Good Practice in such cases is unlikely to affect any substantive change to redress that imbalance. Suggestions for ways to redress the balance between taking mothers and left-behind fathers are suggested.","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":"99 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Redressing the balance: how Australia’s approach under the Hague Abduction Convention is still endangering victims of domestic violence\",\"authors\":\"Annabelle Gray, Miranda Kaye\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/lawfam/ebac021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article explores how Australian courts consider allegations of domestic violence under Article 13(1)(b) of the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. As is now well known, there has been a paradigm shift since the Convention’s introduction, which has seen the circumstances and underlying reasons for international child abduction change. Through an examination of Australian case law from the past 5 years, this article reveals the issues that taking mothers continue to face in Australian return proceedings and the concerning reality that the courts continue to prioritise a prompt return over the safety and well-being of women and children exposed to domestic violence. This is despite feminist legal scholars and activists demonstrating for over 20 years that domestic violence is not being adequately dealt with in return proceedings and calling for change. The article discusses how the huge inequality in legal representation for taking mothers and left-behind fathers adds to the imbalance in these matters. Unfortunately, the recent Hague Conference Guide to Good Practice in such cases is unlikely to affect any substantive change to redress that imbalance. Suggestions for ways to redress the balance between taking mothers and left-behind fathers are suggested.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family\",\"volume\":\"99 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebac021\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"FAMILY STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebac021","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要本文探讨了澳大利亚法院如何根据《海牙儿童诱拐公约》第13(1)(b)条审议家庭暴力指控。现在大家都知道,自从《公约》通过以来,发生了范式转变,国际绑架儿童的情况和根本原因发生了变化。通过对过去5年澳大利亚判例法的审查,本文揭示了澳大利亚遣返程序中带走母亲继续面临的问题,以及法院继续将迅速遣返置于遭受家庭暴力的妇女和儿童的安全和福祉之上的令人担忧的现实。尽管女权主义法律学者和活动家20多年来一直在示威,认为家庭暴力在遣返程序中没有得到充分处理,并呼吁改变。本文讨论了收养母亲和留守父亲在法律代理方面的巨大不平等如何加剧了这些问题的不平衡。不幸的是,最近海牙会议在这种情况下的良好做法指南不太可能对纠正这种不平衡的任何实质性变化产生影响。文章还就如何平衡带孩子的母亲和留守的父亲提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Redressing the balance: how Australia’s approach under the Hague Abduction Convention is still endangering victims of domestic violence
Abstract This article explores how Australian courts consider allegations of domestic violence under Article 13(1)(b) of the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. As is now well known, there has been a paradigm shift since the Convention’s introduction, which has seen the circumstances and underlying reasons for international child abduction change. Through an examination of Australian case law from the past 5 years, this article reveals the issues that taking mothers continue to face in Australian return proceedings and the concerning reality that the courts continue to prioritise a prompt return over the safety and well-being of women and children exposed to domestic violence. This is despite feminist legal scholars and activists demonstrating for over 20 years that domestic violence is not being adequately dealt with in return proceedings and calling for change. The article discusses how the huge inequality in legal representation for taking mothers and left-behind fathers adds to the imbalance in these matters. Unfortunately, the recent Hague Conference Guide to Good Practice in such cases is unlikely to affect any substantive change to redress that imbalance. Suggestions for ways to redress the balance between taking mothers and left-behind fathers are suggested.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
25.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The subject matter of the International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family comprises the following: - Analyses of the law relating to the family which carry an interest beyond the jurisdiction dealt with, or which are of a comparative nature - Theoretical analyses of family law - Sociological literature concerning the family which is of special interest to law and legal policy - Social policy literature of special interest to law and the family - Literature in related disciplines (such as medicine, psychology, demography) which is of special relevance to law and the family - Research findings in the above areas, reviews of books and relevant reports The journal has a flexible policy as to length of contributions, so that substantial research reports can be included.
期刊最新文献
Surrogates’, intended parents’, and professionals’ perspectives on ways to improve access to surrogacy in Australia Introducing a randomized controlled trial into Family Proceedings: Describing the ‘how?’ and defending the ‘why?’ The expert witness—psychologists and judicial gatekeepers in the family court Individual realities and legal responsibilities: a study of non-resident parents who dispute child maintenance obligations in Swedish administrative courts, 2014–2019 Healthcare Decision Making for Children in Singapore: The Missing Chapter in Comparison with English Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1