When orders aren't enough: A new model for child‐centered care in cross‐border family conflicts

Abstract

Abstract Children and adolescents caught in cross‐border custody disputes, including international parental abduction, are at high risk of losing meaningful contact with one parent, often the one with whom they are familiar and comfortable. Such abductions can cause severe and lasting harm. International legal instruments such as the Hague Conventions pertain to return or retention decisions but do not address the aftercare period. Families are left to navigate ongoing conflict, cultural and legal differences, and the emotional impact of separation and reunification on both parents and children with minimal guidance. This article proposes a two component practice model that uses family mediation before court resolution, followed by post‐judgment parenting coordination or other services available within a specific jurisdiction. Building on global initiatives promoting international family mediation, this model offers a structured, multidisciplinary framework to maximize children's safety, stabilize family relationships, and implement court resolutions across jurisdictions. We confront several challenges in implementing the model. Jurisdictional conflicts frequently arise, with several countries claiming authority over the same case, leading to prolonged legal battles. Differing interpretations of concepts such as the “best interests of the child” add further layers of complexity. Issues related to intimate partner violence concerns and standards for child adaptation are complicated by cultural and language differences among both families and professionals. We consider implementation issues that include training, funding, and cross‐border professional coordination alongside the model's potential to promote child‐centered, sustainable outcomes. Finally, we highlight empirical factors for assessing the model's effectiveness and its applicability across cultural and legal contexts.