By 
06-02-2025
Fanni Lovas
South East Asia Researcher,
Global Human Rights Defence.
Cross-border parental disputes, particularly those involving mothers fleeing abusive relationships with their children, are a growing concern in the European Union. A key human rights aspect of these cases is that all EU member states are part of the Council of Europe (CoE), which upholds international human rights standards. Since the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was adopted under the CoE, member states are legally bound by its provisions.
Article 19 of the ECHR established the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as the judicial body overseeing the compliance of High Contracting Parties with the Convention. In addition, Article 34 of the ECHR grants individuals the right to bring a case before the Court if their rights under the Convention have been violated by a state party, thereby offering legal recourse for victims of human rights violations. However, applying to the ECtHR comes with certain requirements. Applicants shall meet the admissibility criteria, including the merits of the case, the jurisdiction of the Court, and the potential for just satisfaction, where the Court may provide remedies or compensation to the applicant.
In cases where mothers flee abusive relationships with children, the ECtHR often rules in favour of family rights, especially under Article 8 of the ECHR. The X v. Latvia case provides the legal basis for the practice of balancing the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction (which mandates child return procedure) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (which focuses on the best interest of the child). The Court highlights exceptions like Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention, allowing refusal of return if there is a “grave risk” to the child’s safety, thereby ensuring family life protection under Article 8 of the Hague Convention.
Before bringing a case to the ECtHR, parents shall first undergo national legal proceedings for custody arrangements, which can be prolonged, sometimes lasting over a year. This delay can leave children in potentially harmful situations, especially if the abusive parent retains parental rights during the process. In such cases, mothers may seek temporary protection as an interim measure, by demonstrating the risk posed by continued contact with the abusive parent. However, as seen in the Case of Re E, without sufficient evidence of harm, temporary custody may be denied, leaving mothers unable to protect their children. The fear of insufficient proof often leads mothers to go into hiding, rather than pursue legal action.
Sources and further reading:
European Court of Human Rights. (2010). Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland, No. 41615/07. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-99817%22]}.
European Court of Human Rights. (2011). X v Latvia. No- 27853/09. https://www.at.gov.lv/files/files/case-of-x-v-latvia.pdf.
Council of Europe. (1950). European Convention on Human Rights. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG.
Maria Wright. (2024, March 5). Domestic abuse and international child abduction-developing better solutions for children under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. HUNTERS Incorporating Peachey & Co. https://www.hunterslaw.com/insights/domestic-abuse-and-international-child-abduction-developing-better-solutions-for-children-under-the-1980-hague-child-abduction-convention/. Accessed 12.02.2025.
Torunn E Kvisberg. (2019, September 17). Child Abduction Cases in the European Court of Human Rights – Changing Views on the Child’s Best Interests. Oslo Law Review. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2019-02-02.
Peter McEleavy. (2015, November). The European Court of Human Rights and the Hague Child Abduction Convention: Prioritising Return or Reflection?. ResearchGate. 10.1007/s40802-015-0040-z.
Peter McEleavy. (2011, October 25). Evaluating the Views of Abducted Children: Trend in Appellate Case-Law. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1949019
KL v BA (Parental responsibility), [2025] EWHC 102 (Fam).
Madeleine Reardon. (2011). Case Comment: Re [2011] UKSC 27. UKSC blog. https://ukscblog.com/case-comment-re-e-2011-uksc-27/. Accessed 12.02.2025.
Comments