ICA cases often involve a wide range of involved players. The original set-up players vary somewhat when dealing with so-called Hague cases and non-Hague cases. Hague cases are ICA cases within the scope of the Hague Convention. Non-Hague cases are those involving states other than the signatory members of the Hague Convention.

Although the stereotype for an abductor is a father with ideological motivations for removing a child to a non-Western country, ICA abductors frequently involve cases where fathers report that mothers have departed from the children’s countries of habitual residence with their children. In Hague cases, it has been observed that the abductors are generally mothers taking their children without the authority of the fathers, while in non-Hague it is believed that the opposite is the case. In some literature, a distinction is made between someone who withdraws custody and an abductor. In this distinction, the motivation for the act is taken into account. In the same way, the person from whom custody has been revoked is not necessarily considered a victim. Notably, every ICA case involves at least two conflicting parties, and one child around which the disagreements occur.

In the Hague cases, the Central Authority is the appointed entity to ensure the proper implementation of the conventions dealing with ICA. However, countries that have not participated in the Hague Convention do not have the obligation to appoint a CA. In those cases, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs become the official institutions involved in the process. Foundations such as ISS, Defence for Children and Reunite can support by using their media resources to assist in solving ICA cases, but their capabilities are mainly limited to giving advice or bringing victims in contact with specialized mediators.

Another group of players involve the specialists. In those ICA cases where the trust has been broken beyond a certain point, options such as mediation become limited to the provision of a communication channel between parties that are otherwise unwilling to communicate. The guardians in these cases often become more dependent on the instruments of justice to settle their disagreements. Cases of international civil or criminal matters are generally handled by the different courts in the country that has jurisdiction over the matter at that point. In general, the disagreeing parties are represented in court by lawyers, although the role of the CA in the country where the court case takes place could change that.

Considering the importance of fast action and proper information provision in cases of ICA, information provided on internet plays a crucial role in properly informing victims. A knowledgeable expert dealing with ICA in the Netherlands frequently will know which information resources are private, and which are governmental. Victims, however, can often not tell the difference between the two. Private investigation offices that offer services to victims often mimic websites of governmental institutions, causing confusion among victims.

Other specialists that could be involved in influencing the judicial decisions may include mediators and psychologists, child protection and youth care organisations. In general law enforcement (such as police or Interpol), schools and day care staff are among the players in ICA cases as well.

The Central Authority

The Central Authority is an institution that has been formed on the basis of article 6 of the Hague Convention. The article states the following:
“A Contracting State shall designate a Central Authority to discharge the duties which are imposed by the Convention upon such authorities.

“Federal States, States with more than one system of law or States having autonomous territorial organizations shall be free to appoint more than one Central Authority and to specify the territorial extent of their powers. Where a State has appointed more than one Central Authority, it shall designate the Central Authority to which applications may be addressed for transmission to the appropriate Central Authority within that State”. (HCCH-1980, Article 6)

A Central Authority cooperates with the CAs of other contracting countries to the Hague Convention, and is obligated to process ICA applications swiftly and ensure the fast transmission between the application and the child’s return. The CA, moreover, has the task of facilitating the voluntary co-operation of the abductor. Furthermore, the CA has the task of handling applications of ICA, visitation and access. In general, a CA can provide assistance with tracing children, arrange their return, secure the interest of parents and children, encourage international visitation and contact, and provide information on developments in ICA cases. The International Child Abduction Centre in the Netherlands defines the CA as follows:

“The Central Authority is the agency that has been appointed to ensure The Hague Convention on Child Abduction is complied with and that the obligations it contains are carried out in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands the Ministry of Justice has been appointed as the Central Authority. The Central Authority also carries out duties under the “European Regulations Brussels II b and The Hague Child Protection Convention. The Central Authority’s tasks, primarily, concern the following subjects:

International child abduction, both to and from the Netherlands;
International parental access agreements, to be applied both in the Netherlands and abroad;
Recognising and enforcing European access and custody decisions in the Netherlands as well as Dutch decisions within the European Union;
Reporting welfare issues within the framework of child protection.

“The Central Authority can also advise parents about international custody and access questions or refer them onto barristers and other institutions which can help them.”

In short, it is the task of the CA to ensure that cases of ICA are dealt with in accordance with the Hague Convention and Brussels II bis.

Procedural Law and the Current Guide to Good Practice

The main sources of procedural law pertaining to the Hague Convention are the HccH Special Commission recommendations, and the Guide to Good Practice. The EU referred to these procedural law regulations as “soft laws” in the answer it provided to the HccH questionnaire on the desirability and favourability of a protocol to the Hague Convention. Since the majority of the conclusions and recommendations of the Special Commission have been incorporated into the Guide to Good Practice, this section will focus on the latter.

The Guide to Good Practice provides guidelines for the authorities to implement and apply the provisions of the Hague Convention. This document determines a significant portion of the functional requirements of the CA. At this point, the Guide consists of a General Principles section, followed by four parts. A fifth part on Mediation –described in the following section– is currently under development, and will be one of the subjects at the upcoming HccH conference of June 1st to 10th, 2011.

The first section of the Guide describes the General Principles, and Transfrontier Contact Concerning Children. It establishes the framework for co-operation between authorities, and describes the enforcement of contact orders under national law. Although the document was assembled in 2008, after the first two parts of the Guide, it’s importance in clarifying the procedures has placed it before the other parts of the Guide. A remarkable fact about this document is how the emphasis has been placed on the importance of contact in ICA cases. Section 1 of the document describes the importance of contact. The first paragraph states the following:

“All possible steps should be taken to secure the rights of children to maintain personal relationships and have regular contact with both of their parents and of parents to maintain personal relationships and have regular contact with their children, unless it is determined that such contact is contrary to the interests of the children. This is equally applicable when the parents live in different countries” (Guide to Good Practice, P.4)
In section 6 of the Guide, it continues to describe the court procedures relating to contact. This section commences by quoting:

“courts should have measures which help safeguard and guarantee stipulated contact arrangements” (Guide to Good Practice, P.35).

Clearly, the focus in this document is to ensure the safeguarding of contact between parents and children in ICA cases.

Part I of the Guide summarizes the CA Processes. It explains the position of the CA in relation to contracting members of the Hague Convention, divides the applications in incoming and outgoing applications, and describes the role and functions of the CA in different situations. Parts II, III and IV of the Guide continue to explain the principles and procedures under the Hague Convention, and deal with Implementing Measures, Preventative Measures, and Enforcement respectively.