The Hague Child Abduction Convention's grave risk of harm exception: Traversing the tightrope and maintaining balance between comity and the best interests of the child

This article provides a critical analysis of divergent judicial opinions about how Australian courts should interpret the ‘grave risk of harm’ exception in the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Conflicting views about the extent to which the exception to a child’s return should permit consideration of a child’s best interests may be a manifestation of the balancing act that must be performed during return proceedings. The Convention seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of international parental child abduction through prompt return, whilst also accommodating situations where non-return is justified on welfare considerations. Perhaps the Family Court’s restrictive interpretation of the exception is a display of the tightrope becoming unsteady; by swaying towards comity, the individual child’s welfare is sacrificed. The High Court has arguably managed to master the art of maintaining balance whilst traversing the tightrope, by expeditiously examining the child’s welfare and the potential consequences awaiting them if returned to their habitual residence.