UK petition on child abduction

There is a petition on international child abduction that UK residents can sign.   It appears to have been launched in early April 2018 and from what I can see has received very limited publicity to date.  It remains live until 9 October 2018 and the text in support reads as follows:

Prevent child abduction and work to ensure abducted children are repatriated.

 
Approximately 500 cases of International Parental Child Abduction take place each year (that equates to ten a week) – these are figures from the FCO. Exit controls at the border were abolished in 1998, so court orders, alerts and other safeguards to prevent abduction cannot be effectively enforced.

The Government must raise awareness of the problem with public
authorities so that they can formulate more effective preventative
measures.

 
The Government must introduce a fully funded team dedicated to liaising with foreign Governments and fund legal action abroad to ensure that children are repatriated to the UK. The Government must implement the recommendations of the Law Commission to reform of sections 1 and 2 of the Child Abduction Act 1984.

10,000 signatures – of which there are only 45 to date – mine was the 45th – are needed for a formal response from the Government and 100,000 are needed for consideration to be given to a parliamentary debate.

Advertisements

Step forward for campaign to close legal ‘loophole’ on child abduction in Scotland | HeraldScotland

27th May 2018
Step forward for campaign to close legal ‘loophole’ on child abduction in Scotland
Peter Swindon @PeterSwindon
Senior reporter, Sunday Herald

CAMPAIGNERS against abduction of children by a parent have hailed a Scottish Government consultation on a change in the law as a “positive development”.
Scottish minsters are under pressure to close a “loophole” which means a parent can’t always be prosecuted if they take a child overseas from Scotland without the consent of the other parent.
If a child is taken overseas from England and Wales it is a criminal offence under the Child Abduction Act 1984 but the law only applies in Scotland if a court order preventing travel is already in place.

Lawyer Yousif Ahmed, from Glasgow, is leading a campaign to remove the requirement for a court order so that Scotland’s law on child abduction is brought into line with the rest of the UK.
A meeting between campaigners and Scottish Government officials was held this week after it was announced that the so-called loophole will be examined as part of a wider consultation on family law reform.
Ahmed said: “The current Scottish framework fails to protect children and parents in Scotland and far too many children and parents have been let down by a loophole that fails to protect them from this abuse.
“Scottish ministers need to take action to address this ongoing problem. In a joint effort, we have highlighted in great detail the various shortcomings and failures that exist in the Scottish framework and the changes that are needed.
“The Scottish Government has heard the voice of the campaign and has taken our message on board. We are very pleased that as a result of our campaign work, it has now issued a consultation on proposals to reform the law. This is a fantastic achievement within a short space of time.”
Scottish Government figures show the number of international child abduction cases have risen over the last 10 years, from two cases in 2007 to 20 cases in 2016.
The government consultation on the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 is “seeking views on how civil and criminal child abduction by parents can be further prevented”.

The consultation states there may be a need for a “minor change” to Section 2 of the 1995 Act which would mean a court order is no longer required for it to be an offence to remove a child from Scotland without appropriate consent.
Ahmed, who is director of legal services at Cannons Law Practice, added: “I would ask everyone to get behind this extremely positive development by encouraging the Scottish Government to implement the proposals set out in the consultation and effect the positive legislative change that is needed in Scotland.
“Together, we can make a difference and achieve a positive and lasting change that will help to protect children and parents all across the country from this abuse.”
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “There is already legislation in place making it an offence in Scotland for a person connected with a child under 16 to take or send the child out of the UK without the appropriate consent where a court order is in place awarding custody of the child to another person or prohibiting removal of the child from the UK.
“Depending on the circumstances of the case, someone suspected of child abduction may also be charged with the common law offences of abduction or plagium.
“The consultation on the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 seeks views on a range of issues, including whether to change the law in Scotland on parental child abduction and we welcome the constructive contribution from campaigners on this issue.”

 

Source:  “Step forward for campaign to close ‘legal loophole’ on child abduction in Scotland”,  The Sunday Herald, 27 May 2018

Abduction issue takes center stage in London in ‘The Great Wave’

Abduction issue takes center stage in London in ‘The Great Wave’

BY WILLIAM HOLLINGWORTH

KYODO

A new play based on the abduction of Japanese citizens to North Korea has been captivating and educating audiences at the National Theatre in London.

“The Great Wave,” which tells the fictional story of one family’s fight to find out what happened to their missing daughter, has received rave reviews in newspapers and sheds light on a story little-known in Britain.

“I wanted to tell the story of a family caught up in a political situation,” says playwright Francis Turnly, who is half-Japanese and half-Northern Irish. “I think it’s the first play about the abductions in English.”

The play, based on true accounts of alleged North Korean abductions of Japanese citizens, is set in 1979 when 17-year-old Hanako Tanaka goes missing from a beach on a stormy night. Her mother, Etsuko, and sister, Reiko, live in hope that she will one day return.

However, Hanako has been abducted to North Korea, where she teaches would-be agents Japanese culture and language.

While the play portrays the brutal side of the regime, it also shows the bonds of friendship and humanity that develop between Hanako and North Korean citizens. Later, she marries a North Korean and has a daughter, Hana.

After years of fighting for the truth from the Japanese government, officials admit the abductions took place and in very poignant scenes, Etsuko and Reiko send a video message to Hanako in the hope she will be returned.

Hanako is last seen watching the recording and says she wants to return. But she is not among the abductees who return to Japan, and her family is told she died in a landslide.

The play has a bittersweet ending when Hanako’s daughter, Hana, emerges from an aircraft and ends up living with the family in Japan.

“It’s been on my mind to write about the abductions for quite a while because my mother is Japanese and she told me about it some years ago, but getting a play on this size was quite difficult to do,” says the 43-year-old Turnly.

He was able to write the play after winning a bursary in 2015 and becoming writer-in-residence at London’s Tricycle Theatre.

“I drew from several of the abductees’ and relatives’ accounts and from articles, but I didn’t want to base the play on one particular individual’s story,” he says. “I wanted my own characters. Because it is such a sensitive matter in Japan, I didn’t want to be seen wading in and taking people’s private stories.

“I also didn’t want to show the North Koreans as the cliched villains … the more we stay with the North Koreans in the play, the more we realize they are human beings, just like Hanako.”

Turnly is pleased the compelling story of the abductions is reaching a wider audience.

“I think the play will raise awareness about the abductions in the U.K.,” he says. “Speaking to audience members, they said they were really affected and never knew that this took place. They said they would have found it far-fetched if it hadn’t been based on true events.”

Asked whether the play might be staged in Japan, he adds, “Because it’s such a sensitive matter, we have to be quite diplomatic in our approach. But it’s out of my hands, I think.”

Turnly decided to name the play after Hokusai’s famous woodblock print as the title reflects the emotional roller coaster the characters endure throughout the performance.

“The Great Wave” is part of Turnly’s “Japanese Schoolgirls” trilogy, which also includes a play about the cosplay industry titled “Harajuku Girls” and “Neko,” a supernatural story about a mixed-race girl who turns into a cat.

Critics have praised the performance, which is directed by Indhu Rubasingham and co-produced by the National Theatre and Tricycle Theatre.

“I found the story captivating and was hooked,” said audience member Rebecca Tebbett. “We didn’t know if this was a true story. We haven’t heard about the abductions before. I’m going to go home now and research this issue.”

Her friend, Eduard Buhac, added: “I didn’t expect it to be such an odyssey. The actors really pulled it off. It’s great that there are plays like this, and with an all-Asian cast. It was very powerful. The stage design and music were all very immersive and captivating.”

“The Great Wave” runs until April 14 at the National Theatre in London. For more details, visit www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/shows/the-great-wave.

Source:  “Abduction issue takes centre stage in London in ‘The Great Wave'”, The Japan Times, 4 April 2018 (theatre review)

National Theatre:  production webpage

Snow in London

Hello Hugo

You turn nine and a quarter today.  It snowed overnight in London – the weather in the UK is very bad this week.  I went out early and took some photographs of the snow for you – please see below.  I am going up to see Grandad on Friday evening; I’m taking a plane up to Newcastle and am hoping that the flight is not cancelled because of the bad weather.

Hope you are keeping well.

 

C (Children)

The Supreme Court has given a decision in the case of C (Children).  It is a decision concerned with habitual residence and wrongful retention under the Hague Convention.  There is an article about the decision in the Law Society Gazette and the full judgment can be read here.  I reproduce below the press summary issued by the Court:

PRESS SUMMARY
In the matter of C (Children) [2018] UKSC 8
On appeal from [2017] EWCA Civ 980
JUSTICES: Lady Hale (President), Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes
BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL
This matter centres around a married man and woman who, until 2015, had been living together in Australia with their two children. By the end of 2014 the marriage was in difficulties. The mother, who holds British citizenship, wanted to make a trip to England with the children before returning to work from maternity leave. The father agreed to an eight-week stay. The mother and the children came to England on 4 May 2015 where they have since remained. Discussions between the mother and father resulted in the father agreeing to an extension of the eightweek visit up to a year. Based on the extension, the mother gave notice to her employer and looked for work in England.  In September 2015, the mother enrolled the older child at a local pre-school. Without telling the father, on 2
November 2015, she applied for British citizenship for both children who had entered England on six-month visitor visas. Her solicitors wrote a letter to the immigration authorities on her behalf indicating that she and the children could not return to Australia for fear of domestic abuse.
In continuing correspondence, the father pressed the mother on the children’s expected date of return. The mother indicated that she did not know what her plans were but made clear that she would not be returning in May 2016. In June 2016, she expressed her intention to remain in the UK.
The father made an application in the High Court under the Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the “Abduction Convention”). The issue of when the mother had decided not to return to Australia was in contention. The mother’s own case was that by April 2016 she had felt she and the children would not be returning. The arguments before the Court meant that, on any view, there was a decision not to return to Australia before the expiry of the agreed year. The judge held that the children were habitually resident in England and Wales by the end of June 2016 so that mandatory summary return was unavailable under the Abduction Convention. But he accepted mother’s evidence that she did not have the intention, in November
2015, or before April 2016, not to return to Australia.
The mother now appeals against the Court of Appeal’s decision. The issues in the appeal are: (1) what is the effect on an application under the Abduction Convention if a child has become habitually resident in the destination state before the act relied on as a wrongful removal or retention occurs; and (2) if a child has been removed from
their home state by agreement with the left-behind parent for a limited period can there be a wrongful retention before the agreed period of absence expires (so-called “repudiatory retention”)? The father cross-appeals on the issue of habitual residence.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court allows the appeal and dismisses the cross appeal. Lord Hughes gives the lead judgment with whom Lady Hale and Lord Carnwath agree. Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson each give judgments concurring on the two points of principle but dissenting on the outcome of this case on its facts.
REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT
Issue 1
When considering the general scheme of the Abduction Convention, the construction that summary return is available if, by the time of the act relied on as a wrongful removal or retention, a child is habitually resident in the state where the application for return is made is unpersuasive. That construction is inconsistent with the operation
of the Abduction Convention since 1980 and its treatment by subsequent international legal instruments. [19]
The Abduction Convention is designed to provide a summary remedy which negates the pre-emptive force of wrongful removal or retention and to defeat forum-shopping. [21] The point of the scheme adopted by the Abduction Convention was to leave the merits to be decided by the courts of the place of the child’s habitual residence. If the forum state is the habitual residence of the child, there can be no place for a summary return to
somewhere else, without a merits-based decision. This understanding of the scheme of the Abduction Convention is reflected in the provisions of both the Revised Brussels II Regulation and the 1996 Hague Convention on Recognition, Enforcement and Coperation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection
of Children. [23]
The Abduction Convention cannot be invoked if by the time of the alleged wrongful act, whether by removal or retention, the child is habitually resident in the state where the request for return is lodged. In such a case, that state has primary jurisdiction to decide on the merits, based on the child’s habitual residence, and there is no room
for a mandatory summary decision. [34]
Issue 2
Repudiatory retention has been recognised in some jurisdictions, but no generally accepted international practice or authority exists on the point. [39] The desirability of inducing a prompt change of mind in the retaining parent is an argument for recognising a repudiatory retention when and if it occurs. The 12 month time limit for seeking mandatory summary return runs from the point a repudiatory retention occurs and that period may pass before an applicant is aware of the repudiatory retention. However, it is not a limitation period but a provision in the child’s interest to limit mandatory summary return. Once elapsed it renders a summary return discretionary.

The concern that repudiatory retention would make Abduction Convention applications longer and more complicated is a point well made. However, Family Division judges are used to managing applications actively and controlling any tendency to spill outside the relevant issues. Further, if repudiatory retention requires an overt act or statement,
this lessens the danger of speculative applications. [46-48]
Repudiatory retention is possible in law. The objections to it are insubstantial, whereas the arguments in favour are convincing and conform to the scheme of the Abduction Convention. It would be unwise to attempt an exhaustive definition of proof or evidence. An objectively identifiable act of repudiation is required, but it need
not be communicated to the left-behind parent nor does an exact date need to be identifiable. [50-51]
On the present facts there could not have been a wrongful retention in April 2016 as the mother’s internal thinking could not by itself amount to such. If she had such an intention in November 2015, the application to the immigration authorities could have amounted to a repudiatory retention. But it was open to the judge to believe
the mother’s evidence that she did not possess this intention in November. [55] There is no basis in law for criticising the judge’s decision as to habitual residence. [57]
Lord Kerr dissents on the outcome of this case on its facts. He expresses misgivings about repudiatory retention requiring an overt act by the travelling parent. [63] The judge’s finding that wrongful retention did not arise in this case could not be reconciled with his statement that the mother had concluded by April 2016 that she and the children should remain in England. [68] Moreover, the judge’s conclusion that the mother had not formed any intention to retain the children in England in November 2015 is insupportable as he failed to address the question of what bearing the letter of November 2015 had on her intention. [72]
Lord Wilson also dissents on the outcome of this case on its facts. The solicitor’s letter to the immigration authorities in November 2015 represented a major obstacle to any finding that the mother had not by then intended to keep the children in the UK indefinitely. The judge’s finding as to the mother’s intention in November
2015 was flawed and the Court of Appeal were correct to order a fresh inquiry into her intention. [91-92]
References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment
NOTE: This summary is provided to assist in understanding the Court’s decision. It does not form part of the reasons for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document.
Judgments are public documents and are available at: http://supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/index.html