The expanding role of expert psychological evaluations and testimony in Hague child abduction litigation.

Hague Convention cases are a growing niche in forensic assessments. These cases focus on returning children, or preventing their return, after international abductions, by one of the parents, has occurred. This article focuses on the legal underpinnings of the Hague Abduction Convention, the "affirmative defenses" that may be invoked to prevent a return order, including "grave risk of harm," "mature objection", and the "well settled defense." The article will also focus on the increasing roles that forensic evaluators play in these matters, the distinction between the role of forensic experts in custody proceedings and Hague cases, and the inherent limitations present in these unique kinds of evaluations. Key points: Pursuant to the Hague Abduction Convention, children are required to be returned to their country of habitual residence, determined generally by the intentions of their parents and their acclimatization to their environment.There are, however, several exceptions to the return requirement, including grave risk of harm, the mature objection, and the well‐settled defense.If a child would face a grave risk of physical or psychological harm if returned, then a return is not required.If a child is sufficiently mature and objects to returning, then a return is not required.If a lawsuit is not filed within 1 year of the abduction and the child is well‐settled in the new country, then a return is not required.Forensic evaluations are increasingly a crucial component in Hague Abduction litigation and its differences to general child custody evaluations are notable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]