OF 0 TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC. Bi-N11tion11\ Family Violence Project 301 South Texas Avenue Mercedes, TX 78570 Telephone (956) 447-4800 Toll Free (800) -;DV Fax (956) 825-7035 LEAP By Email August 31, 2017 Mr. Michael Coffee Attorney Advisor Office of Private International Law U.S. Department of State Washington, D.C. Re: Comments on Draft Guide to Article 13b Dear Mr. Coffee: Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Guide to Good Practices on the Application of Article 13b of The Hague Abduction Convention (hereinafter 'Guide'). We are also grateful to have had the chance to provide oral comments at the August 8, 2017 stakeholders' meeting. We are writing to reiterate some of the points we made at the meeting and to introduce some additional areas of concern. We also want to express our wholehearted endorsement of the views and recommendations expressed in comments submitted by Legal Momentum, Americans Overseas Domestic Violence Hotline, Professors JeffEdleson, Sudha Shetty, and Merle Weiner. First, we recognize the significant effort invested in producing this Guide, particularly given the challenge in balancing diverse views on the application of Article 13b. We are, however, troubled that those who fear broad application of 13b appear to believe it has virtually no legitimate applications at all - and seem to believe that children's only interests in such cases are to be returned to the country from which they were removed. The fact is that the Convention incorporates numerous provisions to protect children's interests in different ways. As Dame in Brenda Hale has powerfully articulated a recent article, "Taking Flight-Domestic Violence and Child Abduction,"1 the Convention is aimed at maximizing and one way it does children's welfare, that is to provide an exception to return where children face a "grave risk." To suggest that this should be almost never applied is to violate the Convention's own purpose - protection of children from harm. We appreciate some signs of progress in the Draft Guide. Most importantly, the Guide states that past intimate partner violence is relevant to future child safety, which is a significant step forward, given many courts' failures - to date - to understand this. In addition, the inclusion of longstanding, well-established knowledge about domestic violence and its impact on children
0 -;DV LEAP By Email OF TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC. Bi-N11tion11\ Family Violence Project 301 South Texas Avenue Mercedes, TX 78570 Telephone (956) 447-4800 Toll Free (800) Fax (956) 825-7035 August 31, 2017 Mr. Michael Coffee Attorney Advisor Office of Private International Law U.S. Department of State Washington, D.C. Re: Comments on Draft Guide to Article 13b Dear Mr. Coffee: Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Guide to Good Practices on the Application of Article 13b of The Hague Abduction Convention (hereinafter 'Guide'). We are also grateful to have had the chance to provide oral comments at the August 8, 2017 stakeholders' meeting. We are writing to reiterate some of the points we made at the meeting and to introduce some additional areas of concern. We also want to express our wholehearted endorsement of the views and recommendations expressed in comments submitted by Legal Momentum, Americans Overseas Domestic Violence Hotline, Professors JeffEdleson, Sudha Shetty, and Merle Weiner. First, we recognize the significant effort invested in producing this Guide, particularly given the challenge in balancing diverse views on the application of Article 13b. We are, however, troubled that those who fear broad application of 13b appear to believe it has virtually no legitimate applications at all - and seem to believe that children's only interests in such cases are to be returned to the country from which they were removed. The fact is that the Convention incorporates numerous provisions to protect children's interests in different ways. As Dame Brenda Hale has powerfully articulated in a recent article, "Taking Flight-Domestic Violence and Child Abduction,"1 the Convention is aimed at maximizing children's welfare, and one way it does that is to provide an exception to return where children face a "grave risk." To suggest that this should be almost never applied is to violate the Convention's own purpose - protection of children from harm. We appreciate some signs of progress in the Draft Guide. Most importantly, the Guide states that past intimate partner violence is relevant to future child safety, which is a significant step forward, given many courts' failures - to date - to understand this. In addition, the inclusion of longstanding, well-established knowledge about domestic violence and its impact on children