Report A/HRC/62/49 under scrutiny

Preliminary note

The Portuguese Association for Equal Parenting and Children’s Rights recognises the existence and gravity of violence against women and mothers, including domestic, sexual, obstetric, economic and psychological violence.

It also recognises the need to protect women during pregnancy, childbirth and the postnatal period, to combat discrimination associated with motherhood and to ensure appropriate responses in situations of war, forced displacement, child marriage, female genital mutilation, extreme poverty and deprivation of health care.

This analysis does not question those realities. It examines how the report Violence against mothers moves from genuine problems arising in very different national contexts to broad conclusions about family courts, fathers, mothers, children, parental alienation, parental responsibilities, child maintenance and international child abduction.

Protecting women subjected to violence, ensuring equality between mothers and fathers and securing the best interests of the child are not incompatible aims. They require rigorous investigation, individual risk assessment and rejection of sex-based presumptions.

Original documents

Executive summary

A/HRC/62/49 is a formal document submitted to the Human Rights Council by a Special Procedures mandate holder. It is not a resolution adopted by the Council, a judicial decision, a treaty or a systematic review of scientific research.

Of the 167 submissions received, only 24 were made by States. The remaining 143, approximately 85.6 per cent, came from other contributors. The report does not classify all of those contributors or explain how the information received was verified, selected and weighted.

Of the report’s 206 numbered footnotes, 69 refer directly to submissions received during the consultation process. This represents approximately 33.5 per cent of the footnotes.

This percentage does not mean that 33.5 per cent of every individually identifiable source is a submission. Some footnotes contain more than one reference, some sources are repeated and a submission may itself include supporting documentation. It does, however, show that submissions play a substantial documentary role.

1. What kind of document is this?

The report was prepared by Reem Alsalem, Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, and submitted to the Human Rights Council.

Special Rapporteurs are independent experts appointed by the Human Rights Council. They exercise their mandates in an individual capacity and do not automatically represent a collective position adopted by Member States.

It is accurate to state that A/HRC/62/49 is a United Nations document. It is not accurate to state that every conclusion it contains was adopted by the United Nations or scientifically validated.

2. Duties of Special Procedures mandate holders

The Code of Conduct for Special Procedures Mandate-holders, adopted through Human Rights Council Resolution 5/2, requires independence, impartiality, objectivity, transparency and balance.

Mandate holders are required to seek to establish facts on the basis of objective and reliable information from credible sources and, wherever possible, to cross-check that information (Human Rights Council, 2007).

Participation by civil-society organisations, victims, professionals, public institutions and individuals is a legitimate component of the human-rights system.

The issue is not whether those contributors may be heard. It is how their allegations were verified and to what extent they support broad conclusions about judicial systems.

3. What the report states about its methodology

In paragraph 2, the Special Rapporteur states that she received 167 submissions, including 24 from States, held consultations with 60 experts and examined secondary sources that she characterised as reliable.

The report itself acknowledges the scarcity of statistics on violence against mothers.

It nevertheless does not explain:

• how the 167 submissions were analysed;
• which criteria determined the inclusion of each item of information;
• how factual allegations were verified;
• how contradictory sources were weighted;
• how the quality of studies was assessed;
• how national cases were converted into global conclusions;
• how possible conflicts of interest were addressed.

4. A submission is not automatically a scientific source

A submission from a non-governmental organisation, public institution, State or individual may contain relevant information.

It may include administrative data, judicial decisions, studies, testimony, clinical documentation, professional experience or legislative proposals.

A submission does not acquire scientific validity merely because it was received or cited by the Special Rapporteur. Its value depends on the methodology, the data presented, the size and composition of the sample, the possibility of verification and the correspondence between the data and the conclusion drawn.

What a submission may demonstrate

A submission may demonstrate that an organisation received particular reports or advances a particular interpretation. Without further investigation, it does not demonstrate that those reports are representative of the ordinary operation of the courts.

The 167 submissions form a voluntary, self-selected sample. They are not a random sample of mothers, fathers, children, families, professionals or courts.

They therefore cannot be used to calculate prevalence or, by themselves, justify expressions such as “frequently”, “normally” or “in most cases”.

5. Who were the 60 experts?

Reference to 60 experts conveys an impression of technical validation. The report does not, however, provide:

• their names;
• their qualifications;
• their academic or professional fields;
• their institutional affiliations;
• the countries represented;
• the selection criteria;
• possible conflicts of interest;
• the questions put to them;
• divergent views;
• the method used to integrate their contributions.

Without this information, it is not possible to assess whether there was disciplinary plurality, legal diversity, a balance of perspectives or participation by experts critical of the report’s initial premises.

6. Absence of a reproducible methodology

The report does not formally present itself as a systematic review and was therefore not required to comply fully with PRISMA reporting standards.

It nevertheless makes broad empirical claims and recommends changes to public policy, legislation, courts and professional practice. It should therefore allow readers to understand how the author moved from the sources to the conclusions.

The report does not provide:

• a pre-defined protocol;
• the databases searched;
• keywords and search strategies;
• the periods covered;
• inclusion and exclusion criteria;
• an assessment of methodological quality;
• a risk-of-bias analysis;
• a method for coding submissions;
• a classification of the degree of certainty;
• a consolidated list of the sources examined.

The expression “reliable secondary sources” is used without explaining the criteria for reliability.

Another team could not reproduce the route taken or understand why particular sources were included and others excluded.

7. Sources with different evidential weight

A human-rights analysis may legitimately combine scientific, legal, institutional and testimonial sources.

The problem arises when sources of very different kinds are presented through the same footnote apparatus and converted into equally categorical statements without any indication of the strength of the underlying evidence.

8. Generalisation across incomparable settings

The report places within the same framework situations arising in Afghanistan, Gaza, Sudan, India, Brazil, the United States, Europe, indigenous communities and legal systems that criminalise extramarital relationships.

It considers together:

• war and the destruction of civilian infrastructure;
• child marriage;
• female genital mutilation;
• obstetric violence;
• extreme poverty;
• employment discrimination;
• parental responsibilities;
• decisions about contact;
• child maintenance;
• parental alienation;
• application of the Hague Convention.

These problems are not equivalent and do not arise within the same legal or social framework.

Testimony from a war zone may be essential to document an attack, rape or forced displacement. A claim about the ordinary behaviour of courts requires a different form of evidence.

9. Portugal is not analysed

The English-language version of the report contains no reference to Portugal.

It does not examine:

• Portuguese court proceedings;
• Portuguese case law;
• statistics from Portuguese courts;
• the General Regime of Civil Guardianship Proceedings;
• Articles 1906 and 1906-A of the Portuguese Civil Code;
• the hearing of children in Portugal;
• court advisory and technical-assessment teams;
• Portuguese decisions under the Hague Convention.

Portuguese law requires decisions about residence, parental responsibilities and contact to be made in accordance with the best interests of the child. It also provides mechanisms to protect victims of domestic abuse, maltreatment and sexual abuse.

This does not mean that Portuguese courts are infallible. It means that a serious analysis of the Portuguese system requires Portuguese data and Portuguese decisions.

10. Claims about family courts

10.1. Mothers portrayed as vindictive or obstructive

Paragraph 16 states that, in proceedings concerning children, mothers are frequently portrayed as vindictive, irrational and obstructive.

The source is a submission from the Family Court Accountability Network.

The report does not provide:

• the countries covered;
• the number of cases;
• the classification criteria;
• the frequency of the expressions;
• a comparison with descriptions of fathers;
• a distinction between prejudice and observed conduct.

10.2. Children used by fathers as bargaining tools

Paragraph 37 states that, in family courts, children are frequently used by fathers as bargaining tools.

The source cited is a submission from the Feminist Legal Clinic.

A claim about frequent behaviour by fathers would require data concerning proceedings, negotiations, agreements and outcomes. Those data are not presented.

10.3. Removal of children as a mechanism of control

Paragraph 52 places the removal of children from their mother within a continuum of coercive control.

A person may use a child to control or punish the other parent. That conduct may be directed against mothers or fathers.

Not every decision to separate a child from a parent results from coercive control. It may arise from risk, neglect, violence, breach of court orders, a need for protection or judicial error.

The report does not examine the decisions needed to distinguish between those situations.

10.4. Courts that “inflict violence”

Paragraph 77 states that family courts inflict violence by minimising allegations of abuse and ordering contact with abusive partners.

The footnotes refer to submissions from Fair Hearing and Stop Surrogacy Now.

Ordering contact with an abusive person may endanger victims and children. Violence must be considered in family-court decisions.

An institutional conclusion about the conduct of courts would nevertheless require analysis of the allegations, the evidence, expert assessments, judicial reasons, appeals and the outcome for the child.

11. “Protective mother” cannot be a presumed category

The report uses the category of “protective mother” without providing clear criteria for deciding who falls within it.

A mother may indeed be protecting a child from violence, abuse or neglect. A father may be in the same position.

Judicial proceedings must distinguish between:

• a report or allegation;
• a suspicion;
• an evidential indication;
• an identified risk;
• a substantiated allegation;
• an unsubstantiated allegation;
• an inconclusive situation;
• false information;
• an honest but inaccurate perception;
• deliberate instrumentalisation.

Insufficient evidence does not automatically mean that violence never occurred. The existence of an allegation cannot automatically be converted into a proven fact either.

Protection requires investigation

The category of protective mother cannot depend solely on how one party describes herself. The same principle must apply to fathers who state that they are protecting a child.

12. Sex-based asymmetry in the recommendations

In paragraphs 88 and 89, the report recognises equality of rights and responsibilities between mothers and fathers.

That symmetry disappears in the recommendations on family justice.

Paragraph 99 recommends:

• prioritising mothers’ economic security;
• recognising the instrumentalisation of the mother-child relationship;
• ending the removal of children from “protective mothers”;
• removing duties imposed on mothers to facilitate abusive contact;
• deducting child maintenance directly from fathers’ income;
• replacing defaulting fathers’ payments through public funds.

There are no equivalent formulations concerning protective fathers, abusive mothers, mothers who obstruct contact, mothers who default on maintenance or fathers subjected to post-separation violence.

Maintenance obligations should be formulated by reference to the parent liable to pay, not to fathers as a sex category.

13. The child is an autonomous rights-holder

The report values the mother-child relationship. That relationship is fundamental and deserves protection.

A child is not, however, a legal or emotional extension of the mother, the father or any other adult.

A child-centred approach must consider:

• the right to safety;
• the right to be heard;
• the right to family life;
• the right to meaningful relationships with mothers and fathers, where safe;
• relationships with siblings, grandparents and other carers;
• the effects of violence;
• the effects of unjustified obstruction of relationships;
• possible conflict between an adult’s interests and those of the child.

The best interests of the child cannot automatically be equated with the interests of the mother, the father or any other adult.

14. Parental alienation: only one part of the debate

The report states that concepts related to parental alienation may be used to discredit allegations of violence.

That possibility must be recognised. Any concept may be misused in judicial proceedings.

The report does not, however, distinguish adequately between:

• “parental alienation syndrome”;
• a clinical diagnosis;
• parental alienation as a descriptive concept;
• observable alienating behaviours;
• unjustified rejection;
• justified estrangement arising from violence;
• loyalty conflicts;
• inappropriate conduct by the rejected parent;
• influence by relatives or professionals;
• a combination of several factors.

A child’s rejection of a mother or father may have several causes. It should not automatically be attributed to parental alienation, but nor should it automatically be attributed to violence.

Marques, Narciso and Ferreira (2020) identified 43 empirical studies published between 2000 and 2018, recognising both the growth of the research and its limitations.

Harman, Warshak, Lorandos and Florian (2022) identified 213 documents containing empirical data published in ten languages.

Miralles, Godoy and Hidalgo (2023) found only 13 studies on long-term emotional consequences and highlighted the scarcity of evidence and the frequent use of retrospective designs.

The existence of both critical and supportive literature calls for a balanced review. The report does not provide that plural map of the research.

The appropriate approach

Do not presume parental alienation. Do not presume violence. Investigate violence, maltreatment, neglect, alienating behaviours, interparental conflict, third-party influence, the conduct of mothers and fathers and the child’s concrete needs.

This approach is consistent with the joint statement of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges .

15. The Hague Convention: history and present reality

The Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was concluded in 1980 to prevent a person from unilaterally altering a child’s situation by removing or retaining the child in another country.

Its central purpose is to prevent the person responsible for the removal from gaining an advantage by unilaterally choosing a new jurisdiction.

15.1. The historical paradigm

Historical reconstruction of the Convention’s preparatory work indicates that the predominant model under consideration was a non-custodial father removing a child from the mother.

There are, however, no comparable global statistics from 1980 that would allow the distribution between men and women to be quantified accurately.

15.2. The current profile of taking persons

In 2021, 23 per cent of taking persons were fathers and 2 per cent were other persons or bodies. Among mothers, 94 per cent were sole or joint primary carers. Among fathers, the corresponding proportion was 71 per cent (Lowe & Stephens, 2024).

15.3. A majority of mothers does not establish a majority of proven victims

The data identify who removed or retained the children. They do not establish the motive for each removal.

There are no global statistics that permit the proportion of cases involving alleged or substantiated domestic abuse to be determined (Barnett, Kaye, & Weiner, 2024).

15.4. Being the primary carer does not confer unilateral power to move to another country

Primary-carer status is relevant and must be considered when assessing the child’s circumstances.

It does not automatically confer a right to change the child’s international habitual residence unilaterally where the other parent also holds rights concerning the determination of residence.

A return order under the Convention does not finally determine with whom the child should live. In principle, it determines which State has jurisdiction to decide residence and parental responsibilities.

15.5. The Convention contains a grave-risk exception

Article 13(1)(b) permits refusal of return where there is a grave risk that the child would be exposed to physical or psychological harm or otherwise placed in an intolerable situation.

The HCCH has published a Guide to Good Practice specifically addressing this exception .

The Convention may be applied incorrectly in individual cases. That does not justify describing it as though it legally disregarded every form of risk or required automatic return in all circumstances.

Why is this example relevant?

The report presents the Convention principally through the category of “protective mothers”. It does not examine with equal depth removals with no substantiated connection to violence, the child’s rights, the position of the other parent, the stability of the child’s habitual residence or the exceptions already contained in the Convention.

16. The Brazilian submission must be contextualised

The report relies on a submission from Brazil’s Federal Public Defender’s Office to support claims about the removal of children, parental alienation and application of the Hague Convention.

Brazil has Law No. 12,318 of 26 August 2010, which defines acts of parental alienation.

The law was amended by Law No. 14,340/2022 and remains part of the Brazilian legal system. Legislative proposals seeking its repeal are pending.

The Public Defender’s submission should be understood as one position within an ongoing Brazilian political and legal debate.

It is not:

• a representative sample of Brazilian decisions;
• a comparison between different courts;
• an analysis of mothers and fathers in equivalent circumstances;
• research concerning Portugal;
• evidence of how European courts operate.

A Brazilian institutional position cannot automatically be converted into a global conclusion.

17. Self-citation is not independent validation

In paragraph 53, the 2026 report cites A/HRC/53/36, the 2023 report prepared by the same Special Rapporteur.

An earlier report may legitimately be cited to provide continuity in the work of the mandate.

It does not, however, constitute independent confirmation of the same author’s conclusions.

Risk of circularity

1. A first report advances a proposition.
2. A second report cites the first as authority.
3. Other documents cite both reports.
4. Institutional repetition is then presented as consensus.

Multiplication of citations does not replace external validation, data analysis or scientific review.

18. Legitimate and better-supported sections

A rigorous analysis should not conclude that the whole report is false or without value.

The sections concerning:

• violence during pregnancy;
• obstetric violence;
• maternal mortality;
• child marriage;
• female genital mutilation;
• employment discrimination;
• mothers in situations of war;
• mothers with disabilities;
• mothers deprived of their liberty;
• social protection during motherhood;

include scientific studies, reviews, data from international organisations and relevant legal instruments.

Even in those sections, the report does not provide a systematic explanation of how sources were selected. The documentary basis is nevertheless stronger in several respects than it is in the passages concerning family justice.

Recognising this difference strengthens the credibility of the analysis. The report is not rejected because of political disagreement. Each claim is assessed according to the source that actually supports it.

19. How the report should be cited

Conclusion

Report A/HRC/62/49 addresses genuine and serious problems faced by women and mothers in different parts of the world.

The institutional authority of the document does not, however, turn all of its statements into scientific conclusions.

In matters of family justice, the report has significant weaknesses:

• no reproducible methodology;
• extensive reliance on voluntary submissions;
• failure to identify the experts consulted;
• no explicit assessment of source quality;
• conflation of testimony, news reporting, activism and research;
• generalisation across incomparable legal settings;
• no analysis of Portugal;
• strong conclusions supported by limited sources;
• reliance on earlier reports from the same mandate;
• an incomplete account of parental alienation;
• asymmetrical treatment of mothers and fathers;
• insufficient attention to the child’s autonomous rights.

APIPDF rejects the use of selected national cases, testimony or submissions from advocacy groups to construct global presumptions against fathers as men.

It also rejects the use of the expression “United Nations report” as a means of closing down scientific, legal or professional debate.

Protecting women subjected to violence is indispensable. It is equally indispensable to protect male victims, children exposed to conflict, mothers and fathers who are unjustifiably separated from their children and families affected by incorrect decisions.

Technical annex: claims concerning family justice

This annex focuses on passages directly concerning family justice, parental responsibilities, parental alienation, the Hague Convention and child maintenance. It is not a complete individual classification of all 206 footnotes.

References

How to cite this article