HomeAccountability Index › Thailand
Country data · Hague Return Accountability Index

Thailand

A Contracting Party that did not respond to the HCCH 2021 statistical survey; the only per-country data available is U.S.-proxy, so a full ranking is withheld.

52 / 100
52.2 / 100 3Tier 3 · Mixed measured performance
Confidence: Medium (0.56) Global rank #3 of 14 Transparency 0/100
Provisional · data year 2021 · updated 2026-07-06
How to read this page. This is a data and policy analysis resource — not legal advice and not a legal determination of treaty compliance. Scores are provisional. Countries publish very different amounts of data; missing data lowers confidence, not performance. Resolved is not the same as returned. Where data covers U.S.-related cases only it is labelled proxy. Any budget figures shown are estimated, not official government spending.

Summary & score

Thailand is a Contracting Party to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, in force since 2002-11-01 (Accession), with an Article 38 acceptance check required for some country pairs. Its provisional Index score reflects the categories that can currently be measured — chiefly transparency and participation — while return-outcome and cost data remain unpublished (see limitations).

Incoming return applications (2021)
Outgoing return applications (2021)
2 / 4
U.S.-related return cases resolved (2024, proxy)
0
Transparency score / 100

Ranking breakdown

Return effectivenessweight 45%
46.7 / 100 proxy
Speed & enforcementweight 30%
Not published
Cooperation & complianceweight 15%
60 / 100 proxy
Data quality & confidenceweight 10%
65 / 100
Transparency (context)context — not scored
0 / 100
Cost efficiency (context)context — not scored
Not published
Show the exact calculation

Only categories with evidence enter the score; unmeasured categories are excluded (not scored as zero), then the remaining weights are renormalised. See the methodology.

overall (v2) = weighted blend of the measured DRIVER categories, renormalised: Return effectiveness 46.7 × 45% Cooperation & compliance 60 × 15% Data quality & confidence 65 × 10% = Σ(score×weight) / Σ(weight) = 3651.5 / 70 = 52.2 / 100 → Tier 3 (Mixed measured performance) drivers: Return effectiveness (45), Speed & enforcement (30), Cooperation (15), Data quality (10). Transparency (0) and Cost are shown for context but are NOT scored in v2. confidence = 0.56 (Medium) — reduced for a small sample (N=4)

What helped: —. What hurt: a weak/uncertain return-outcome signal.

Cooperation basis: U.S. IPCA 2024: 'cooperative relationship,' but 'delays in communication from the Thai Central Authority in the past have jeopardized the timely filing of Convention applications.' Not cited for a pattern of noncompliance. U.S.-proxy

Transparent calculation object (per component, with verification)
ComponentNormalized (0–100)WeightWeighted ptsScored (driver)?
Return effectiveness46.745%21✓ yes
Speed & enforcementnull30%✓ yes
Cooperation & compliance6015%9✓ yes
Transparency00%0
Cost efficiencynull0%
Data quality & confidence6510%6.5✓ yes

v2 overall = weighted blend of the measured DRIVER categories (Return effectiveness 45, Speed & enforcement 30, Cooperation 15, Data quality 10), renormalised over those with evidence. Transparency and Cost are shown for context but are NOT drivers (weight 0). A country with no return-outcome or timeliness evidence is "insufficient", not scored.

Second verification (formula): displayed overall 52.2 vs. independently recomputed 52.2 → ✓ match.

Warnings: return effectiveness is U.S.-proxy (U.S.-related cases only), not the country’s global outcomes; return effectiveness from a very small sample (N=4); shrunk toward the baseline; cost_per_returned_child relies on PROXY / estimated return data — indicative only; cooperation signal is U.S.-perspective proxy (U.S.-related cases only).

Machine-readable object for every country: calculations.json.

Quick facts

Hague 1980 statusContracting Party · in force 2002-11-01 · Accession
Article 38 checkYes — confirm acceptance for your specific country pair
EU member stateNo
Central authorityOffice of the Attorney General — International Affairs Department — Office of the Attorney General of Thailand
Latest data year2021 (HCCH statistical study)
Data scopeHCCH 2021 survey not answered — per-country data is U.S.-proxy only
Budget transparencyNo public budget line located

Case outcomes

Thailand did not respond to the HCCH 2021 statistical survey, so verified global caseload figures are not available. The only per-country data is U.S.-proxy below.

U.S.-related cases only (CY2024) proxy data

U.S.-related cases only — four return cases involving four children in CY2024; two resolved, two open at year end. This is NOT Thailand's global caseload and 'resolved' does not necessarily mean the child was returned.

Return casesResolvedOpen at year endChildren
42 (50%)24

One access case involving two children (opened 2023) was resolved by year end.

Source: U.S. Department of State, Office of Children's Issues — Annual Report on International Child Abduction 2025 (reporting on calendar year 2024) E2 · proxy. “Resolved” is not the same as “returned.” This covers only cases involving the United States.

Speed & enforcement

No per-country timing data is published for Thailand. No per-country timing data; the U.S. did not request location assistance in 2024 and reported one case before the Thai judiciary.

Global benchmark (2021): the average return application took 207 days against the Article 11 six-week (42-day) aspiration; 24% of cases took over 300 days. Source: HCCH (Prof. Nigel Lowe & Victoria Stephens) — Prel. Doc. No 19A — Statistical study of applications made in 2021 (5th Global Study, updated Sept 2024) E1 · official.

Public cost & cost efficiency

Estimated — not official spending. No official Central-Authority budget line exists for Thailand; every figure below is a transparent Level B/C estimate (budget confidence 0.15/1). Office of the Attorney General, International Affairs Department — no public budget line or FTE disclosure located; very low case volume.
Direct Central Authority cost estimated1,150,000–9,720,000 THB ≈ $32,200–$272,160
Broad public implementation cost estimated2,300,000–29,160,000 THB ≈ $64,400–$816,480
Returned children (denominator)not usable proxy
U.S.-proxy only (2024): 2 of 4 U.S.-related return cases resolved — NOT necessarily physical returns and NOT global. A cost-per-returned-child figure is not meaningfully computable.
Cost per returned child (broad, est.)Not meaningfully computable insufficient return data
Cost per active case (est.)n/a
International public supportNot an EU member; pays an HCCH assessed contribution (amount not public). No inbound international public support located.
How the estimate is built (reproducible): Level B (estimated FTE × fully-loaded Thai public-sector cost × overhead) + Level C (broad multiplier). No official budget line; among the lowest-confidence estimates on the site.
FTE 2–6 × fully-loaded cost 500,000–1,200,000 THB × overhead 1.15–1.35 → direct; × broad multiplier 2–3 → broad public cost. FX THB→USD 0.028 (2026-07, approx). Budget transparency 0.05/1.

Sources: UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office / HCCH Central Authorities directory — Thailand Central Authority — Office of the Attorney General, International Affairs Department (Child abduction in Thailand) E2 · official · OECD — Average annual wages / general government compensation (loaded-cost benchmark) E3 · secondary · U.S. Department of State, Office of Children's Issues — Annual Report on International Child Abduction 2025 (reporting on calendar year 2024) E2 · proxy

Central authority & legal system

Office of the Attorney General — International Affairs Department verified

Office of the Attorney General of Thailand

HCCH contact details

Implementing lawChild Abduction Act B.E. 2555 (2012) — Thailand's implementing legislation for the 1980 Convention.
Court structureThe Central Juvenile and Family Court (Bangkok) hears return applications.
AppealsAppeals within the juvenile and family court system — detail not independently verified.
EnforcementEnforcement mechanism not independently verified; requesting states have reported communication delays.
Legal aidAvailability for Convention cases not independently verified.
Mediation / voluntary returnNot independently verified.

International support

HCCH provides the multilateral framework, statistical studies, and the Malta Process. Per-country funding amounts from the EU, HCCH, UN, or Council of Europe are not published as discrete line items and are recorded as a data gap.

Transparency assessment

Responded to HCCH 2021 statistical surveyNo
Reports incoming & outgoing flowsNo
Reports access casesNo
Dedicated budget lineUnknown — not located
Return-outcome / enforcement disclosureNot published per-country (global aggregate only)
Transparency score0 / 100

Did not respond to the HCCH 2021 statistical survey (absent from the responding-states table).

Data quality & limitations

  • Full ranking withheld: Thailand did not respond to the HCCH statistical survey, so there is no uniform E1 data.
  • The only per-country data is U.S.-proxy (four U.S.-related cases in 2024).
  • Central-Authority identity and legal-framework details are not yet independently verified.
  • No public Central-Authority budget line located.

Confidence: Medium (0.56) — confidence reflects the strength and breadth of evidence, separately from performance. A low confidence means "we cannot yet fully evaluate," not "this country performs badly."

Sources & evidence

SourcePublisherTierSupports
Status table — 1980 Child Abduction Convention (cid=24)Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH)E1 · officialhague_1980_status, entry_into_force_date, accession_or_ratification_type, article_38_acceptance_required
Prel. Doc. No 19A — Statistical study of applications made in 2021 (5th Global Study, updated Sept 2024)HCCH (Prof. Nigel Lowe & Victoria Stephens)E1 · officialcaseload, transparency_survey_participation, global_return_rate, average_resolution_days, outcome_distribution
Central Authorities directory — 1980 Convention (cid=24)HCCHE1 · officialcentral_authority
Annual Report on International Child Abduction 2025 (reporting on calendar year 2024)U.S. Department of State, Office of Children's IssuesE2 · proxycooperation, speed_proxy, us_related_case_counts
1980 Hague Convention, Article 11 (six-week decision aspiration)HCCHE1 · officialspeed_benchmark

FOIA / public-records questions

Tailored requests that would raise Thailand's confidence score and unlock the return-outcome and cost categories:

  1. Which government body is Thailand's designated Central Authority under the 1980 Convention, and what are its verified contacts?
  2. What implementing legislation governs 1980 Convention cases, and where is the official text published?
  3. How many incoming and outgoing Convention applications did Thailand handle in each of the last five years?
  4. How many children were physically returned under the Convention in each of the last five years?
  5. Why did Thailand not respond to the HCCH 2021 statistical survey, and will it respond to the next study?
  6. What is the Central Authority's annual budget and FTE count for Convention casework?
  7. What is the average time from application to first-instance decision at the Central Juvenile and Family Court?
  8. What steps are being taken to address the communication delays noted by requesting states?
  9. Is legal aid available to left-behind parents in Convention proceedings, and at what public cost?
  10. Does Thailand publish any national Hague Convention statistics?

Use the data

Machine-readable data for every country: countries.json · rankings.json · rankings.csv · sources.json. Last updated 2026-07-06. Cite as: “SafeReturn Alliance, Hague Return Accountability Index (provisional), 2026-07-06.”

This page is a data and policy analysis resource, not legal advice and not a legal determination of treaty compliance. Scores are provisional and analytical. Some data reflects cases involving the United States only and may not represent the country's full global Hague caseload. Budget figures, where shown, may be estimated and are labelled; none are shown as official government spending unless an official source supports them.