In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

211 Appendix B Methods for Mothers’ Study This study was guided by an initial conceptual framework based on previous research related to battered mothers’ processes and decisions to end an abusive relationship. We examined this literature to develop a framework for considering what might influence a battered woman in another country to leave that country and come to the United States. Previous research has identified three core areas that affect women’s decisions to leave an abusive partner: (1) the level of violence experienced (DeMaris, 2001; KingstonReichers , 2001); (2) her evaluation of the effect the violence has on her and on her children (Humphreys, 1995; Short, McMahon, Chervin, Shelley, Lezin, Sloop, et al., 2000); and (3) her access to resources, particularly those specifically related to domestic violence (Panchanadeswaran & McCloskey, 2007). In the case of women leaving another country, we considered the role that resources in that country might play, as well as resources in the United States. Once the Hague Convention petition was filed in the United States, we also considered whether a woman’s domestic violence experience was addressed in the Hague Convention petition process, and in particular the role domestic violence played in the judge’s decision about returning the children to the other country. Finally, with very little prior research available on what happened after a Hague Convention decision was made, we considered what outcomes, regarding safety for children and their mothers, resulted from the court’s decision. Most of our information about battered women who were subject to a petition under the Hague Convention comes from published legal rulings that document only the aspects of the case relevant to the those decisions. As a result, we have only limited knowledge about the experiences, perspectives, and actions of the mothers, attorneys, and other key players in these situations . Therefore, a primary focus in this study was to solicit the stories of battered mothers who had been respondents to a Hague Convention petition in us courts. Research methods that focus on providing in-depth descriptions and interpretations of phenomena (usually referred to as interpretive or qualitative methods) are the preferred method for (1) developing knowledge about a phenomenon that is poorly understood (Marshall & Rossman, 1999); 212 | Appendix B (2) explicating processes involved in interactions between individuals and social institutions around critical events such as legal prosecution (Roe, 1994); (3) accessing a “hidden population,” such as women who may be in the United States hiding from abusive partners (Faugier & Sargeant, 1997); and (4) understanding how individuals assign meaning to critical events within their particular historical and social context (McHugh, Livingston, & Ford, 2005). Each of these factors was important to this study. To understand what has happened to battered women who flee with their children from other countries, we focused on obtaining biographical, chronological , and process-oriented data. A goal of interviewing mothers was to identify commonalities and discrepant areas among the women’s experiences, and to examine whether patterns of experiences could be related to the outcome of the Hague Convention petitions. To obtain information about the processes involved in Hague Convention cases, we also interviewed both respondents’ and petitioners’ attorneys about their views and responses to the women’s stories, including whether they believed domestic violence had occurred and the role it should play in Hague petition decisions. In addition, we interviewed other key informants, such as expert witnesses, a guardian ad litem, an advocate, and a paralegal, all of whom had worked on Hague Convention cases involving domestic violence. We attempted to interview judges, but had little success. Judges we contacted suggested that because most judges have heard only one Hague Convention case while on the bench, they may be uncomfortable discussing their views about it; doing so might be viewed as a breach of judicial ethics in terms of giving case-specific information. So instead, we expanded our scope to review all published judicial opinions related to Hague cases in which domestic violence was alleged. Finally, we did not interview the father petitioners for safety reasons we will specify. Nor did we interview the children, because approximately one-half of them were in a father’s custody, and because we were focused primarily on the decisions of their mothers and the strategies and opinions of attorneys, judges, and others in these cases. Human Subjects Approval This study was reviewed and approved by University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board (IRB; No. 0610S93508). The University of Washington agreed to have the University of Minnesota IRB be responsible for the...

Share