Thematic hearing at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights exposes harmful application of child abduction laws in cases of domestic violence

A recent hearing exposes how international child abduction laws are being applied in ways that undermine the rights of survivors of domestic violence and place them and their children at risk.

On 11 March 2026, Equality Now, alongside Hague Mothers and 14 partner organisations, took part in a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, during its period of sessions in Guatemala, to examine how international child abduction legal frameworks intersect with gender-based violence.

At the hearing, civil society organisations and experts discussed the implications of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and the Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children (the “Conventions”) for women and their children. These international legal instruments, adopted by many countries, define the international relocation of a child by one parent without the other parent’s consent as international child abduction. However, human rights concerns arise when courts, in adopting and implementing these provisions, treat all such cases as inherently harmful and label the “taking” parent as an abductor, even in situations where a mother has fled with her child to escape an abusive household.

“The objective of the hearing was to highlight the human rights implications of applying international child abduction legal frameworks in cases where mothers are fleeing gender-based violence, and to promote survivor-centred and gender-responsive approaches within the Inter-American human rights system,” said Bárbara Jiménez-Santiago, Regional Representative of Latin America and the Caribbean for Equality Now.

The discussion brought a persistent problem into focus. Legal mechanisms designed to address wrongful child removal are being applied in ways that can end up penalising mothers who flee abuse to protect themselves and their children.

Limits of international child abduction laws in cases of domestic violence

Ruth Dineen, international coordinator of Hague Mothers, noted that the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children were developed to ensure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed across borders. In practice, however, these legal frameworks often fail to account for the realities of domestic violence and lack of access to justice for survivors. As highlighted during the hearing, the majority of so-called “abducting parents” are mothers. Yet courts frequently prioritise the return of the child over an assessment of risk. 

In practice, this creates a structural imbalance. Survivors are placed in a position where they must choose between their own safety and remaining with their children. In many cases, the implementation of the Conventions becomes a punishment and a weapon used against the survivor mothers, especially when survivors experience a serious lack of resources in the country they migrated to. 

Gaps in legal protection

In principle, under the Hague Convention, which is often prioritised within the inter-American system, there are some protections for women experiencing domestic violence. For instance, the convention allows courts to refuse a child’s return if there is a “grave risk” of harm. However, this is not a specific protection for survivors of abuse. In practice, this threshold is difficult to meet, and there is often insufficient time to gather extensive evidence before return orders are granted. At the same time, patterns of coercive control and psychological violence are not always recognised adequately without a gender-based approach and training.

As a result, even when there is a history of domestic violence, courts may still order the child’s return. This gap between the reality of abuse and how the law is applied leaves survivors without effective protection.

A lived experience of systemic failure

The hearing also included testimony from Loana Noguera, a survivor whose experience illustrates how these gaps operate in practice.

After fleeing the United States with her young child to escape domestic violence, she rebuilt her life in Argentina, where her son was safe, in school, and receiving care. Years later, following a petition under the Hague Convention, her child was returned to the United States.

Despite documented evidence of abuse, including findings by child protection services and restraining orders, she was not given a meaningful opportunity to present her case. Her evidence was dismissed, and the return was ordered. Reflecting on the process, she explained: “I was not treated as a mother trying to protect my child. I was treated like a criminal.” 

Her son was separated from her for several years and later disclosed further abuse after his return to the United States. Her experience is not isolated. It reflects broader systemic failures identified by practitioners, researchers, and survivors across jurisdictions.

Why this matters for human rights

This issue goes beyond how individual cases are decided. It raises broader questions about how international legal frameworks are interpreted and applied.

International child abduction laws are part of private international law, meaning they govern legal relationships between individuals across borders. However, these legal frameworks are being applied in domestic contexts involving domestic violence without sufficient alignment with human rights standards and States’ obligations.

States have binding obligations to protect women from violence and to safeguard children from harm. These obligations must guide how courts interpret and apply international child abduction laws.

When these legal frameworks are applied without a gender-responsive and survivor-centred approach, there is a risk that legal processes intended to protect the interest of the child instead contribute to further harm.

Towards a gender-responsive and human rights-based approach

The hearing highlighted the need to shift how these legal frameworks are interpreted and applied in practice. Ensuring that domestic violence is systematically considered in international child abduction cases is essential. Courts must be equipped to assess different forms of abuse, including coercive control and psychological harm, and to understand how these shape survivors’ decisions to flee.

This also requires strengthening judicial guidance and training, as well as improving access to legal representation and information for survivors navigating complex cross-border proceedings.

More broadly, there is a need to ensure greater alignment between private international law frameworks and human rights standards. This includes closer coordination within the Inter-American system, including mechanisms focused on violence against women, to support consistent and rights-based approaches across jurisdictions. 

Shivangi Misra, Senior Legal Advisor at Equality Now, who represented Equality Now at the hearing, highlighted that, “The Commission can take concrete measures to address the issues raised at the hearing, for example, issue guidelines, hold regional convenings to strengthen human rights standards in this thematic area, and work closely with member States and civil society to ensure that human rights of women and children are being implemented.” 

This hearing marked the first time these issues have been formally examined by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. It represents an important step in recognising the systemic nature of the problem and placing it within a human rights framework.

The recording of the hearing is available on YouTube.