On Sunday 31 May 2026, Channel Nine's 60 Minutes program broadcasted a report titled, The Point of No Return. It included emotional stories involving international child abduction, and associated issues relating to the International Hague Convention (the Hague Convention).
International child abduction cases are extraordinarily difficult and upsetting for all involved, particularly for the children who are caught in the middle of a parental dispute that spans different countries, and especially when family violence is involved.
It is important to stress that Australian courts will refuse to make an order to return a child to the country they have been taken from, when returning the child would imperil their safety or psychological stability and inadequate protective measures are available in that country. Or, where it is determined that the conduct of the perpetrator is such that any protective measures would likely be disregarded or remain unenforced.
The underlying principle is that while the Hague Convention's objectives (deterrence of abduction and respect for foreign jurisdictions) are important, they cannot override the imperative to protect children from serious harm. This has been demonstrated in many court decisions, which are publicly available on Austlii .
Prior to the 60 Minutes program airing, the Court offered the producer and reporter of the program access to the anonymised judgments of the cases they were featuring, to provide them with an opportunity to check the evidence and facts presented in the cases, and to understand the reasons for the decisions made by the Court. Unfortunately, this offer was not taken up.
Therefore, it necessary for the Court to now address the factual inaccuracies that were broadcast, and to provide the public with information that was omitted from the program to better inform the viewers and the broader public.
A summary of key inaccuracies and omitted facts are outlined as follows:
- The report made several references to the Court not accepting allegations of family violence as part of the Hague Convention proceedings, and the reporter said that, "under the Hague Convention, there's a key defence mothers can argue, that returning the child to their father puts them at grave risk of harm."
- Whilst it is accurate that a parent involved in Hague proceedings can pursue the regulatory exception of a "grave risk of physical or psychological harm" or "intolerable situation", the exceptions were not pursued on family violence grounds in either of the cases reported.
- The report claimed the importance of the children living in Australia but failed to mention that each child was found to be habitually resident in Belgium, not Australia, before they were removed from that country.
- In one of the cases reported, an impression was given that the mother and child were Australian, when in fact, the mother and child were not Australian citizens, and Australia was not their habitual place of residence.
- In both cases, when the children were returned to their home countries, the mothers chose not to accompany them on the plane or return to Belgium to be with their child, issues that had been extensively canvassed and encouraged during the court proceedings.
- In one of the cases, court orders were made for the father to pay for flights and accommodation to facilitate the mother to accompany the child on the flight. Notwithstanding these orders, the mother chose not to accompany the child.
- In the other case, the Court imposed conditions to ease the return of the mother and child to Belgium which specified that, once returned, the child was to live with the mother. In addition, other conditions were imposed that related to the provision of accommodation, access to a vehicle, financial and other support. Notwithstanding these conditions, the mother chose not to accompany the child back to Belgium.
- When asked "how many mothers who have fled domestic violence have you seen actually keep their child?", one of the interviewees answered, "none." There are many examples where the Court has decided not to make orders for the return of a child. A sample of those decisions, directly contradicting the interviewee, were provided to the reporter and producer of the 60 Minutes program prior to broadcast but this was not included in the program.
- The Court has also put in practice many of the recommendations outlined in the Law Council of Australia report, including; application of the recommended approach to grave risk, regularly appointing an Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) who has specific training in Hague matters, along with appointing specifically trained family report writers and court registrars. Further, a legal aid scheme has been implemented to provide legal support to the parent who has removed the child.
All of the Court's Judges hearing cases under the Hague Convention are highly experienced and have access to world-leading training and resources on family violence, international child abduction and the complex dynamics present in these types of cases.
The relevant court decisions are published online and are available for the public to access and to read the reasons behind these very emotional and complex cases.
