<p>It is not often that an academic book reads as if it were a novel. In fact, Katarina Trimmings had to compete with Mark Haddon, whose book I was reading at the same time and she did very well. Both the writing style and the systematic way in which the author addresses the issues grip the reader and make it difficult to put the book down.</p>
<p>This book covers a topic, international child abduction, about which much has been written and many policy meetings have been held. It is a difficult topic, above all because of the acrimonious family contexts in which child abductions occur and the severe effects they have on the family members and children involved. The law is faced with a situation that is very hard to resolve in a satisfactory way.</p>
<p>While all agree that the best interests of children should be guaranteed, it is not easy to draft rules that do precisely that. The point of departure of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention is that an abducted child should be taken back to the place of his or her habitual residence as quickly as possible. This principle aims at ensuring that parents do not take the law into their own hands and attempt to change parental rights and responsibilities in another jurisdiction. However, in order to guarantee the best interests not only of children in general, but also of the specific children involved in a particular case, there are a limited number of exceptions to the return rule.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://eu.vlex.com/vid/council-regulation-ec-no-843351667">Brussels II</a><italic>bis</italic> Regulation, enacted in the European Union in 2003, addresses divorce and parental responsibility. One of the matters covered is international child abduction. The Regulation did not establish a new regime for child abduction within the European Union, but retained the 1980 Hague Convention, which is in force in all Member States. However, the Regulation amended certain of the exceptions on the return rule. Katarina Trimmings, in a systematic way, shows that the Regulation has not really brought all of the improvements it had set out to bring.</p>
<p>As a first step, the author explains the process in which the Regulation was born. She shows how averments were made that simply did not correspond to the available empirical data at the time.</p>
<p>She then goes further to add her own empirical research, comparing her results with those of earlier studies. She points out that the Regulation did not necessarily reach its goal of ensuring more returns. While there is a clear decline in the use of some of the grounds for refusing return (such...</p>
