Objecting children and party status in Hague Convention proceedings heard in England and Wales: searching for rationality and authenticity

This article draws upon an original empirical research study in England and Wales that identifies how children at the centre of Hague parental child abduction proceedings exercise their participatory rights under Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (UNCRC). The complexities inherent in the child objection defence are considered, in particular how to establish that the objecting child's views are authentically their own, rather than those of their parents. It is argued that such complexities act as barriers to the exercise of children's Article 12 UNCRC participatory rights and produce delay in contravention of the Convention's primary policy objective. The article asserts that the current process serves the adults and court process rather than the child. Through a children's rights lens, it is argued that one way to prioritise the child and concurrently minimise delay is for a legal representative to be appointed for all children in Convention proceedings at the start of the case. In doing so, the procedural and substantive complexities arising from examining the child's objection will be reduced, saving court time. It concludes by calling for timely accessible information to be provided to children in fulfilment of our international obligations arising from their Article 12 UNCRC rights, in particular enabling them to access their own legal advice at an early stage