This chapter focuses on the access, eligibility and case management processes of the Goodwill Committee. This chapter also addresses procedural ambiguities reported through consultation and proposes improvements for streamlined access, participation and a pathway to obtain enforceable outcomes.
Strategic Review of the Egyptian Goodwill Committee
Advancing child-friendly justice in Egypt
Abstract
The Committee can receive requests for assistance with cases from a wide array of sources, including concerned parents (mothers or fathers) from Egypt or any other country, legal representatives of involved parties, and foreign authorities such as governments, ministries, embassies, consulates and other relevant international committees.1 During consultation, some embassies reported open cases before the Committee (and often concurrent court proceedings). Others had not encountered child abduction cases in recent years and were unaware of the Committee and how to access it. Applying to the Committee does not prevent parents from pursuing judicial proceedings to seek custody orders via recognition of foreign judgments.2
To access the Committee’s services, the following documents are required to be submitted to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) via the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), who in turn submit the dossier to the technical secretariat of the Committee (refer to Figure 4.1):3
proof of marriage – marriage certificate from the country of marriage
passport or proof of identification
original birth certificates of the child (or children)
divorce certificate or decree
court order defining the custody or visitation rights with the child (or children), if applicable.
Upon receipt, the MoJ technical secretariat assesses the application on a case-by-case basis and, if necessary, requests clarification and/or additional documents from the parent seeking assistance. After accepting the application, the collective responsibilities of the Committee include4:
facilitating discussions, supporting communication and the exchange of information between the parties in dispute, at interagency level across Egypt and internationally between Egypt and foreign Governments
liaising with the relevant authorities, if required, to ascertain the location of the child
assisting with the development of agreements for child contact and visitation
assisting with obtaining visas or transportation documents for both the non-custodial parent and the child in cases where the party present in Egypt wishes to travel abroad to see the child or to pursue legal action against the other party.
During consultation, the Committee confirmed there were no procedural differences (or differences in powers) for citizens from States with bilateral agreements versus those who do not; the Committee can provide assistance to citizens of all countries.5
The Committee’s role is adjacent to litigation: to facilitate dialogue and help resolve disputes via amicable resolution. Litigation in this area of law is complex and typically requires foreign parents to seek judicial recognition and enforcement of foreign custody orders under Articles 296 to 301 of the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law.6
During consultation, the Committee emphasised that their processes can be of particular use to help locate the child and to facilitate the resolution of contact and access issues, consistent with supporting the considerations of the best interests of the child.
Queries were raised during consultation on the overall purpose of the Committee – particularly the intersection with judicial processes. Several stakeholders asked why they would advise their citizens to use the Committee if it is unable to provide an enforceable outcome. While the Committee provides support to achieve amicable resolutions, including the facilitation of consent-based agreements, there is currently no pathway for parties to file their consent-based agreements in court and obtain a judicial seal, which is critical for enabling enforceability in the event of non-compliance. Currently, parties who reach consent-based agreements, but who later require enforcement, must commence judicial proceedings, which can be both lengthy and costly.
To provide a pathway for enforceability it was proposed that where parties are able to reach consent-based agreements via the support of the Committee, these agreements could be filed in court to obtain an enforceable order.
The ability to obtain an enforceable outcome may incentivise a higher uptake of Committee services and, in turn, reduce the volume of international parental child abduction cases progressing to the courts. To enable court filing, the ministerial decree of the Committee (proposed for revision in Chapter 3) could include new powers in this regard, including detail on the pathway and process.
Refer to Figure 4.1 below, for the visual flow of the Committee process, including the proposed pathway for court filing and obtaining a judicial seal.
Source: Author’s elaboration.
During consultation, stakeholders also highlighted that the initial process for accessing the Committee's services can be ambiguous. As outlined in Figure 4.1, parents, legal representatives and embassies are currently required to initiate their requests for help through the MoFA. This process can be confusing as follow-up enquires and processes are controlled by the MoJ (where the Committee and its technical secretariats are located). Embassies are not always provided with the MoJ's contact details when they submit to MoFA and are often required to source contact information through their own channels.
During consultation, the Committee confirmed that the MoFA must be notified of international cases by the initiating party (e.g. parent or embassy) prior to the MoJ or Committee's consideration. However, the Committee accepted the entry pathway could be modified and streamlined by establishing a direct, dual (MoFA or MoJ) channel via a back-end process, e.g. mail merge or the MoJ directly forwarding initiating applications to the MoFA. Embassies emphasised the importance of the continuity of contact details, i.e. the same contact details used to initiate the process as for follow-up communications. In this context, the OECD considers that the establishment and promotion of a direct entry pathway (transmitting to both the MoFA and MoJ via back-end processes) is essential for reducing confusion and enhancing trust.
Embassies also advised that many of their recent cases had been referred to legal practitioners to navigate court proceedings and obtain necessary orders, rather than pursuing Committee processes. This method was deemed effective for securing an enforceable outcome. While every case should be judged on its own merits, including the determination of the appropriate legal pathways, systematically discarding the Committee’s process risks overlooking a crucial and effective resolution service. Particularly in family law, amicable resolutions can facilitate less adversarial and more harmonious outcomes, preserving relationships and prioritising the best interests of all parties involved, especially where children are concerned.
Both parents may physically attend the Committee meetings with their legal representatives, and/or officials from international embassies or consulates in Egypt. Recently, the Committee has also facilitated virtual participation, with inaugural virtual sessions convened in early 2024.7 Cairo-based embassies expressed positive feedback on these recent virtual sessions, recognising they have significantly enhanced the ability for their citizens to participate (given the international nature of these conflicts and frequent travel difficulties).
With respect to child participation, abducted children are not able to directly engage with the Committee to provide their views, including wishes on their preferred country of residence or parental living arrangements. The reasoning behind the Committee’s position8 on this is twofold:
Children under 15 years of age are not able to express a preference, given maternal care (including with maternal or paternal grandmothers if not safe with their mother) is presumed to be in their best interests under Article 20, Personal Status Law (Law No. 25 of 1929).
Often the location of the child is the main issue and participation is irrelevant if their location is unknown.
Emergent best practice from the Hague Convention and OECD Members is to expand the mechanisms for child participation, particularly in relation to the child's rights of objection (Schuz, 2023[1]). Similarly, it was acknowledged that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (with Egypt as a signatory) provides children with a right to be heard.9
Through obiter comments in 2006, Baroness Brenda Hale of Richmond, former President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, made a compelling statement on child participation in abduction cases:
…there is now a growing understanding of the importance of listening to the children involved in children’s cases. It is the child, more than anyone else, who will have to live with what the court decides. Those who do listen to children understand that they often have a point of view which is quite distinct from that of the person looking after them. They are quite capable of being moral actors in their own right. Just as the adults may have to do what the court decides whether they like it or not, so may the child. But that is no more a reason for failing to hear what the child has to say than it is for refusing to hear the parents’ views.
Source : Re D [2006] UKHL 51 (para 57).
Given the diverse characteristics of child abduction cases, in reviewing the decree establishing the Committee the Government of Egypt (GoE) may benefit from incorporating provisions for child participation, if appropriate, having regard to circumstances of the case and governing legislation. Including the possibility of child participation in a revised decree may help to future-proof it, to ensure ongoing alignment with evolving legal frameworks. It was also proposed that the committee host visitation as a neutral venue for consular visits and parental visitation in cases where the parties cannot agree on a location for visitation.
4.5.1. Case management
Cases before the Committee can be fragile and require a rapid exchange of information to seize opportunities and address emerging challenges. A lack of structured and standardised internal processes may impede the Committee’s ability to understand and prioritise cases.
Every four to five years the Committee produces an “inventory” of cases; however, there is a lack of clarity regarding mechanisms used on a day-to-day basis to support case management. As a result, significant inefficiencies may rise in how cases are handled and tracked. Without clear, standardised procedures for managing and prioritising cases, the Committee risks overlooking critical issues or delaying action on important matters. This can lead to a backlog of cases, reduced effectiveness in addressing compliance issues, and the potential erosion of stakeholder trust and confidence in the Committee's ability to fulfil its mandate.
By establishing standardised procedures and enhancing members' understanding of the legal framework, the Committee can better manage the increasing number of cases and the complexity associated with international, parental child abductions. This approach not only improves efficiency but also ensures that each case is handled with due consideration for the best interests of the child/ren.
Coupled with establishing standardised procedures, the OECD recommends the development of case management guidelines. Guidelines can effectively consolidate reference materials to provide clear and comprehensive guidance on the interpretation of governing laws and procedures, ensuring that Committee members have a consistent framework to navigate the complexities of child abduction cases. Guidelines can also include best practices for engaging with affected families, understanding cultural sensitivities, and implementing child-centred approaches that respect the rights and needs of children.
4.5.2. Member selection, training and reference materials
The Committee's work is highly specialised and complex, requiring a deep understanding of international law, the rights of the child and diplomatic processes. Given the evolving nature of international, parental child abduction cases, it is critical to provide continuous professional development opportunities to the Committee's members, and equip them with the necessary skills and competencies to meaningfully advance Egypt’s child-friendly justice system.
According to the mandate of the authorising decree, each member institution is required to designate individual representatives to perform Committee functions. It is expected that staff have several years of experience before being considered suitable to represent their agency on the Committee. To ensure continuity of case management once an individual member attends as a representative it is expected that the same individual will continue to represent their ministry for the duration of the case. If individual members leave their position (e.g. via retirement, transfer, etc.) they are replaced by an equally qualified individual.
The last official training was provided to Committee members in 2016.10 The training built the capacity of members to manage high-profile cases and was delivered by specialised experts. Following the 2016 training, more training sessions and workshops were requested by the Committee, recognising the ongoing need to support operations and better define roles and responsibilities. However this training did not occur. The gap in training support hinders the Committee's capacity to adapt to evolving legal standards and international practices, impacting their overall performance and the quality of support provided to affected families. By expanding and regularising professional development opportunities, the Committee can enhance its capacity to handle complex cases, and continue to understand and prioritise the best interests of the child.
Equally, acknowledging the specialised nature of the Committee and the necessity to build institutional capacity, there is also an opportunity for Committee members to facilitate knowledge exchange and deliver training on the Committee processes and legal principles across the Egyptian Government internally, such as with family court judges, legal practitioners and the bar association, in order to build relations, encourage knowledge sharing, and establish communication channels for professional guidance and support.
4.5.3. Monitoring and evaluation
While the exact figures are not available, since 2000 the Committee has handled approximately 200 child abduction cases, with an estimated 85 of these cases still considered active or unresolved.11 Overall, there is a lack of clarity in relation to the breakdown of the cases (case type, gender and resolution outcome) or the substantive impact of the involvement of the Committee.
The lack of formal statistics, including detailed breakdowns, hinders comprehensive analysis and understanding of the Committee’s efficiency. Evidence-based decisions require quality data. Moreover, better access to data can assist governments and justice systems in recognising new patterns and anticipating new vulnerabilities (OECD, 2023[2]; OECD, 2021[3]).
The OECD recommends that the Committee consider the integration of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to support ongoing performance management and evidence-based service enhancement. This will not only improve the Committee's ability to adapt and respond to changing circumstances but also enhance its capacity to provide targeted support to the vulnerable families that seek its assistance.
Establishing foundational data for monitoring and evaluation is crucial for several reasons, namely:
by providing a means to systematically track and analyse the Committee's activities and outcomes over time, enabling a comprehensive understanding of trends and areas in need of improvement
by ensuring transparency and accountability, allowing stakeholders to have insight into the Committee's performance
by empowering the Committee to make evidence-based decisions, allocating necessary resources from the Ministry of Justice to the Committee to enhance its efficiency and effectiveness, and continuing to enhance processes in alignment with the best interests of the child.
4.6.1. Access
Establish and promote a direct entry access pathway, transmitting to both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) via back-end processes for non-Egyptian citizens to reduce confusion and enhance trust.
4.6.2. Develop mechanism for enforceability
Where parties reach consent-based agreements, establish a pathway and process for these agreements to be filed for a judicial seal, thus enabling enforceability. Both the pathway and process for a judicial seal may be outlined in the revised ministerial decree.
4.6.3. Participation
Consider the broadening of Committee participation mechanisms, including additional options for:
child participation, if appropriate, having regard to circumstances of the case and governing legislation
virtual Committee sessions, formalising the possibility of using these, recognising that this format has already been used in practice.
4.6.4. Case management, monitoring and evaluation
Develop and implement a comprehensive case management system for the Committee. This system should include standardised processes for case intake, assessment, prioritisation and tracking.
Develop case management guidelines to consolidate core reference materials, and provide clear and comprehensive guidance on the interpretation of governing laws and procedures.
Develop monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to support Committee performance management and increase transparency, particularly to:
track the volume or trends of cases, allowing for an assessment of demand and resource allocation
enable evidence-based decisions and the ability to continuously enhance operations in alignment with the considerations of the best interests of the child.
4.6.5. Training
Develop an ongoing and up-to-date training programme for Committee members to keep them informed on emerging standards, legal developments and practices in child abduction cases.
Support Committee members in developing and delivering training programmes for broader audiences (judicial and legal personnel) to uplift the sector-wide understanding and application of the Committee's processes and legal principles.
References
[1] Marilyn Freeman & Nicola Taylor (eds.) (ed.) (2023), Child participation and the child objection exception, Edward Elgar Publishing.
[2] OECD (2023), “OECD Child-Friendly Justice Framework: Building a people-centred justice system”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 41, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6a60970e-en.
[3] OECD (2021), OECD Framework and Good Practice Principles for People-Centred Justice, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cdc3bde7-en.
← 1. OECD fact-finding visit in Egypt, February 2024.
← 2. Articles 12-29, Egyptian Civil Code, Law No. 131 of 1948.
← 3. OECD fact-finding visit in Egypt, February 2024.
← 4. OECD fact-finding visit in Egypt, February 2024.
← 5. Ministerial Decree No. 613 for the Year 2000, Establishing a Committee for International Co-operation in Disputes Relating to Custody for Children of Mixed Marriages.
← 6. Articles 296-301, Egypt Civil and Commercial Procedures Law No 13 of 1968
← 7. OECD fact-finding visit in Egypt, February 2024.
← 8. OECD fact-finding visit in Egypt, December 2023.
← 9. United Nations (1989), Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 12, United Nations Treaty Series.
← 10. OECD fact-finding visit in Egypt, February 2024.
← 11. OECD fact-finding visit in Egypt, December 2023.