Episode 38. The Hague Convention with Carolina Marín Pedreño

The Hague convention is something that affects many LBP’s who are trying to seek the return of abducted children. But What it it and how does it work? This Week I’m pleased to bring you my interview with Carolina Marin Pedreno. Carolina is a Spanish Abogado, who cross-qualified as a Solicitor in 2006. She is known as a “go-to practitioner for cross-border work involving both public and private children cases”.She specialises in international cases particularly child abduction, registration and enforcement of foreign contact orders, leave to remove, residence, contact and public law cases. Carolina is a frequent lecturer and author on family law and has been interviewed by the press on many occasions. In 2016, she was invited by the Spanish Judicial Council to participate in the training of the Spanish Judiciary in international family law. She is consistently ranked by both Chambers and The Legal 500.


Australian Hague convention statistics

Join the discussion on Facebook
Vote for LBP Stories in the Australian Podcast Awards

9 Replies to “Episode 38. The Hague Convention with Carolina Marín Pedreño”

  1. Here are some tips for attorneys and clients faced with instituting or defending child abduction proceedings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, whether in the United States or internationally.

    In a nutshell, a Hague Convention application may be made when a child is taken or retained across an international border, away from his or her habitual residence, without the consent of a parent who has rights of custody under the law of the habitual residence, if the two countries are parties to the Convention. The child must be promptly returned to the habitual residence unless the return will create a grave risk of harm to the child or another limited exception is established.

  2. The International Parental Abduction Association (IPAA) started life in 2008, as a parent support network formed by one parent, Dawn Willson, who now works with other parents all trying to navigate their way through the legal minefield of international parental child abduction. We have never received charity funds nor taken money for the services we provide, but that is about to change in 2018. Over the years we evolved and developed into an information and resource centre. Initially starting out as the International Parental Abduction Network, in 2017 we changed our name to the International Parental Abduction Association and are now recognized as the leading organization and authority, in the U.S. in international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders.

  3. I wish to say that this episode is awesome, vital information for alienated parents. I’d like more episodes like this.

  4. In this interview, Mr. Fujiki pointed out some faulty regal system of Japan which has been exploited by malevolent Japanese lawyers as well as foreign lawyers in Japan who exploits the loophole of the current Japanese law.

    Mr. Fujiki said, when marital status fails for some reason, the couple often competes for parental custody of the children at family court, because in Japanese law, joint custody is not allowed after divorce. Often parent become unable to see his or her children for years.

  5. I learned a lot from this episode. Thank you Paul. Are there any other international law experts you can get on the show for more perspective?

  6. This is the reality of an adult child of divorce (ACOD) raised by a narcissistic parent. “I wanted to share this with you because…even as a 31 year old, the effects of mental abuse are still very real for me, especially when it comes to my mother. Years and years of mind control cannot be erased in a decade. Yes, I am in a good place now, but it is because I choose to be and have been very careful to ensure I am in this headspace. Breaking that connection takes work. And a simple phone call that wasn’t even answered and very well could have been an accidental butt-dial *could* have set me off wanting my mother’s attention and love; it happened to me many times over the years. I know it’s a blackhole though. I have to be strong, for myself. Please try to keep this in mind and empathize with your alienated loved one. The emotional trauma of being raised by an alienator never goes away… Be strong and stay strong. Much love.”

  7. “Open letter to alienated fathers…Guys, our children need us. I could care less what the feminist, the idiot family court judges, unethical family court attorneys argue…our children need us! Never, never, never give up the struggle against parental alienation. There is more than one way to battle parental alienation and to re-connect with your children: use social media, reach out to her friends and their parents, school officials, teachers, Sunday school teachers, etc. Educate them about parental alienation, never, never, never criticize the mother, and stay 100% focused on your relationship with your children!”

  8. ‘It can feel lonely but you’re not alone’ Mum reveals what she’s learnt from co-parenting
    Jude Peppis-Clay, blogger for the award-winning Kiki Blah-Blah, shares her views on co-parenting her two-year-old son, TJ.

    ‘It was never my intention to be co-parenting. After spending months ‘trying’ to get pregnant following five years of marriage, it never even crossed my mind that I would end up as a single parent.


  9. Bolch Approves Child Abduction As Being In Child’s Best Interests
    August 24, 2018 by Robert Franklin, Member, National Board of Directors, National Parents Organization

    In this case, it’s taken one mother and two courts in separate countries to deny a child a relationship with her father (Marilyn Stowe Blog, 8/22/18). It looks to have been hard work, but they managed the feat. And of course, the ever bland and gob-smackingly dense John Bolch agrees. Where would we be without Bolch to pillory in the internet town square to the delight of the crowd that actually knows something about family courts and children’s well-being? John, it’s good for a man to have a purpose in life and that appears to be yours.

    An American man and a Latvian woman seem to have been married in England and had a daughter in October of 2015. They separated about three months later.

    After they separated the father suspected that the mother intended to remove the child from the jurisdiction, because she wished to return to Latvia with the child. Accordingly, on the 9th of February 2016 the father issued an application for an order prohibiting the mother from removing the child from the jurisdiction. An order in those terms was made by the court on that day.

    Mom ignored the order that obviously was made without the stipulation that she turn over her passport to someone designated by the court. She took the child to Russia where her parents live and the two have been there ever since. Understandably, the father filed a petition, pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, in a Russian court. Apparently that petition is still pending.

    He also filed an action in a British court asking that it issue an order enforcing its own order prohibiting the mother from fleeing with the child. Amazingly, the British court refused to do so.

    Mr Justice Keehan accepted that the child was well cared for in Russia, where she had been living for two years and four months at the time of the hearing. On the other hand, he was concerned that the father, who was not represented, was “focused, indeed obsessed, on the rights – his rights of parental responsibility, on [the child’s] rights to live in Russia or her rights to live in this jurisdiction.”

    Yes, because the father was “focused, indeed obsessed” with his parental rights and the child’s rights to both parents, he was considered by the British judge to be undeserving of having any relationship with his child and indeed, no parental rights at all, at least none he can exercise.

    First, if a father can’t be focused on his rights in a court of law, where should he be? Neither the judge nor Bolch appears to understand that courts are where rights are adjudicated and, not assisted by counsel as he was, the man probably felt the need to assert those rights as strongly as he could. Somehow that redounded to his detriment.

    And of course the hook on which the court hung its hat was – you guessed it – the best interests of the child. Equally predictable, Bolch, who’s never met a court’s decision of which he disapproved, fails to even question the court’s thinking.

    Most obviously, parental child abduction is child abuse as many mental health professionals have said and common sense agrees. So, as we so often see in abduction cases, the court that tells us it’s acting in the child’s interests ignores not only the indisputable fact of child abuse, in this case by the mother, but as well the fact that the child continues to live with her abuser. The same judge who failed to take the passport from a mother who was known to be a flight risk now rubberstamps her doing exactly that and all under the magic formula of the “best interests of the child.” Amazing.

    And, also as we so often see, the Russian court has taken something like two years to do what the Convention requires to be done far sooner. In the meantime, it’s created a fait accompli – the child living peacefully with her abductor and grandparents. Who would interrupt such an arrangement just to comply with and international convention to which one’s country is a signatory?

    As I’ve said before, it is precisely the reason that the Convention exists that (a) these cases be handled expeditiously and (b) whatever the temporary upset to the child at being returned to her father, the law is the law and should be enforced.

    This of course is where Bolch is apparently willfully blind. When a court allows a parent to violate its order without consequence and cloaks its doing so in the mantle of the best interests of the child (or any other for that matter) it signals loudly and clearly to other parents that it doesn’t mean what it says, that court orders are just meaningless words. The British court’s refusal to enforce its order, and on the slimmest of pretexts, is an open invitation to future parents to violate future orders. The message is this: “Keep the child long enough and we’ll give you precisely what you wanted all along – the removal of the other parent from the child’s life.”

    When the BIC is used in such a way, it accomplishes the opposite, not just in the case at bar, but in future cases. Bolch claims to have been a lawyer, but his invariable failure to grasp that simplest of legal concepts calls the matter into question.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *