The first part of the book critically evaluates the evolution of the separate intra-EU child abduction regime and examines the extent to which the European Union complied with its standards of good legislative drafting during the negotiations on the Brussels II bis Regulation. It seeks to demonstrate that there was no real legal need for the involvement of the European Union in the area of child abduction and for the tightening of the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention return mechanism. The second part of the book presents findings of a statistical survey into the operation of child abduction provisions of the Brussels II bis Regulation in the first year of the functioning of the instrument and reveals how effectively the intra-EU return mechanism operated in that year. Based on the findings of the statistical survey, the book identifies and discusses a number of points of concern in respect of the functioning of the new child abduction scheme. Finally, the book investigates whether the Brussels II bis Regulation has added any value in the area of child abduction.

1. Introduction
I. Structure and Methodology
2. Milestones on the Road to the Separate Child Abduction Regime within the European Union
I. October 1999: The Tampere European Council Meeting
II. May 2000: Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and in Matters of Parental Responsibility for Children of Both
Spouses (the Brussels II Regulation)
III. July 2000: Initiative of the French Republic with a View to Adopting a Council Regulation on the Mutual Enforcement of Judgments on Rights of Access to Children
IV. December 2000: The Draft Programme of Measures for Implementation of the Principle of Mutual Recognition
of Decisions in Civil and Commercial Matters
V. March 2001: Commission Working Document: Mutual Recognition of Decisions on Parental Responsibility
VI. September 2001: The Commission Proposal for a Council Regulation on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and
Enforcement of Judgments in Matters of Parental Responsibility
VII. October 2001–May 2002: Consultations on the Commission Proposal
VIII. May 2002: The Commission Proposal for a Council Regulation Concerning Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and in Matters of Parental Responsibility Repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 and Amending Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 in Matters Relating to Maintenance
IX. November 2002: Report of the European Parliament on the Revised Commission Proposal
X. November 2002–November 2003: Heated Negotiations
XI. The Brussels II bis Regulation
XII. Conclusions
3. Principles of Good Legislative Drafting vs Child Abduction Provisions of the Brussels II bis Regulation
I. The Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality
II. The Consultation Policy
4. The Argument of the Misuse of Article 13(1)(b): Myth or Reality?
I. The Statistical Analysis of Applications made in 1999 under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
II. Special Commission Meetings to Review the Operation of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
III. Conferences and Judicial Seminars
IV. Academic Literature
5. Operation of the Brussels II bis Regulation: Empirical Study
I. Background to the Empirical Study
II. Scope, Aim and Methodology of the Empirical Study
III. Findings of the Empirical Study
IV. Conclusions of the Empirical Survey
6. Points of Concern
I. More Liberal Interpretation of the Key Concepts of the Convention in Order to Avoid Judicial Refusals Based on
Article 13
II. Protection of the Abductor Parent and the Child upon the Return
III. Timing
IV. Judicial and Administrative Qualities in the 'New' Member States of the European Union
7. Added Value of the Brussels II bis Regulation: A More Child-Centred Approach as a Result of the Obligation to Hear the Child Introduced by Article 11(2) of the Regulation
I. EU Jurisdictions: England and Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Northern Ireland
II. Current Approaches Toward the Defence of Child's Objections in Major Non-EU Jurisdictions: Australia, Canada and the United States: Post-2005 Case Law Analysis
8. Conclusions

“The thesis of Katarina Trimmings stands as a profound study of recent developments on child abduction within the EU; at the same time it explores unchartered territory through the elaboration of questionnaires and statistica data from Central Authorities of many countries” –  Dr. Apostolos Anthimos, Armenopoulos (Thessaloniki Bar Review)

“It is not often that an academic book reads as if it were a novel…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…The book gives an excellent overview of the problem of international child abduction in all its contemporary complexity. It also makes a point about sound and deliberate legislative drafting based on clear research findings…When academics produce this level of work, they indeed deserve to be taken seriously by policy makers.” –  Thalia Kruger, Edinburgh Law Review

“..Katarina Trimmings' book offers a pioneering study on the additions to the Convention for child abductions within the European Union created by Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (the Brussels II bis Regulation, or: Brussels II bis)… Her recommendations for amendments to the Regulation (chapter 8) are well reasoned and should be taken seriously on the occasion of the next revision of the Regulation.” –  Hans van Loon, Netherlands International Law Review 2014, issue 1, pp. 128-132

“Overall, there is no doubt that this book is a very important contribution to the existing literature, not only specifically in relation to the Brussels II bis Regulation, but also more generally in relation to EU law-making and international child abduction. It should be read by all who have an interest in these fields.” –  Rhona Schuz, Child and Family Law Quarterly, 2014, 2