KEY POINTS:
The policeman's worst crime, if there was one, was his optimism. When his wife refused to come home with him from a holiday in England, and kept the kids, he gave her the time she said she needed. He returned to work in Auckland last July, hopeful of reconciliation.
His wife was born in Bradford but lived mostly in New Zealand from the age of 9 when her family emigrated. Even after her family moved back to England when she was 17, she returned to New Zealand.
Bradford couldn't offer what she had here, her husband believed. He would give her some space.
But he was no fool. When, in September, he found out about the affair she'd begun with an old flame he hopped on a plane and confronted her.
That seemed to bring things to a head. When he got back, he saw a lawyer who reinforced his plan to work things out amicably. A custody battle would be drawn out and expensive and the mother usually wins, the lawyer advised.
Meanwhile, there were encouraging letters and texts from his wife. She still loved him and wanted to come back. Things would be different, she promised.
The husband returned to England to spend Christmas with the family, confident they'd all be coming home together. He'd booked tickets for December 31 - Mum, Dad and three kids.
But on Christmas Day, he found text messages showing his wife was still in touch with her old flame. There was a row and, six days later, he returned home alone.
Six months had elapsed since the family went to England for a two-month break following a tough 12 months, which included the troubled birth of their third child. There were credit card debts and rent to be paid on a big, empty villa - after a roller-coaster emotional ride it was time to sort out the finances.
The husband saw another lawyer who told him about the Hague Convention on child abduction. The application to return the children to their home country, so custody and access could be decided here, was heard in London in April - the husband answering questions by a video-link which kept cutting out.
In a decision which has raised legal eyebrows, he lost. The judge found that his actions since his wife refused to come home showed he "acquiesced" in her retaining custody of the children in England.
The 1980 convention was designed to prevent estranged partners illegally taking the children to live in another country. In the bad old days, the non-custodial partner (usually the father) would take the kids to a country considered sympathetic and use the courts to keep them there.
New Zealand, considered a soft touch, was a favoured haven.
The convention has changed all that. In most cases, it requires abducting partners to return the children to their "home" country - and let the justice and welfare systems there sort out the custody issues. About 60, mainly western, nations are signatories, each country handling cases through a central authority with streamlined court procedures.
The convention is a lofty-sounding mechanism for a legal arena of white-knuckle emotion: nothing is more human than parents wanting to maintain ties with children. While high stress accompanies any family break-up, here the stakes are raised by the distance between countries.
A spate of high-profile international tug-of-love cases has placed the Hague Convention in the crossfire in New Zealand.
Women's Refuge wants its use disqualified from cases where domestic violence has been verified by police and welfare agencies.
Last week, it highlighted the plight of "Sally", a New Zealand woman who fled to Christchurch with two young children to escape their violent father in Queensland. She obtained a domestic violence order in Australia and a protection order in New Zealand after returning here in March last year.
But after her ex-partner launched proceedings under the Hague Convention, a Family Court judge accepted Queensland police evidence that the level of violence was relatively minor. A High Court judge and now the Court of Appeal have upheld the ruling that the children be returned under the convention.
In a press release, Women's Refuge asked: "When the police in two countries think a family will be at risk of potentially lethal violence if it returns, why are we following the Hague Convention?"
What's often forgotten, says barrister Emma Parsons, is that the convention does not mean that children are returned to a violent or abusive parent, but to the country in which they usually live. Its main purpose is to discourage unlawful abductions.
"There may be horrendous violence but unfortunately Mum has run with the kids before the courts have had a chance to deal with it. All the convention is saying is go back and deal with it."
Signatory countries have faith that the court and welfare systems in the "home" country will provide for children's welfare and safety and deal fairly with access and custody issues.
But as women who've experienced domestic violence everywhere know, there can be no guarantee of protection. Women sent home may have little means to support themselves and may be financially dependent on the abusive partner they have escaped from. While these are not faults of the convention, critics want these issues addressed.
The courts can ignore the agreement and refuse to order the return of children in exceptional circumstances: most commonly where there is "grave risk" of harm to the children. But it's rare for New Zealand courts to grant exceptions.
Critics say our judges are overly worried about maintaining the integrity of the convention and set the threshold for exceptions too high.
Those calling for an overhaul point out that the profile of child abductors has changed. When it was introduced, they were most likely to be fathers - non-custodial partners who would take the kids for an overseas holiday and disappear. But for the past decade, most abductors have been women - many escaping violent partners.
Sally's lawyer Alexis Hart says the convention is outmoded. Sally's case raises the issue of what happens when a woman without means is forced to return.
Australia's welfare agency has indicated she will not qualify for even an emergency benefit. Hart says there's no guarantee she'll get legal aid to pursue the most logical court remedy - an order allowing her to relocate to New Zealand.
The convention has other limitations. There's no room in hearings for cross-examination - judges must take the word of warring parents. Cases can take two to three years to wind through the courts (some go as far as the Supreme Court) meaning children become settled in their new country and judges are wary of further upheaval.
Some abductors go to great lengths to go underground, knowing it can be a defence if a claim is filed after 12 months.
Hart says New Zealand is interpreting the convention "more strictly than just about any other country. [Judges] seem to think even when a protection order has been issued the father still has custody rights.
"In [some of] the situations we are dealing with, how can you say it's abduction?"
Courts do refuse to send abductors back. Last month, a High Court judge overturned a Family Court ruling that three brothers brought to New Zealand in April 2005 by their mother be returned to Australia, where their father was seeking contact with them.
There was evidence of serious violence, drug-taking and death threats, including one occasion in which he poured kerosene over her. But the Family Court ruled in November that the boys' return did not expose them to grave risk.
Last year, the Court of Appeal overturned a Family Court ruling - upheld in the High Court - that two young children be returned to Australia. Their mother brought them here (when they were aged 1 and 2) in February 2002 following an unstable relationship with their itinerant father which included drug-taking and violence. Upholding the integrity of the convention played a part in the Family Court judgment, but the Court of Appeal found it in the best interests of the children that they remain here.
And, in the case of the Auckland policeman, an English judge, Justice Moylan, accepted the wife's evidence that the husband had consented to the children living in England. This case, like many Hague cases, swung not on allegations of violence or abuse but on whether the father had "acquiesced" to his children living in another country.
When, in the early months, his wife was wavering about coming home, his lawyer advised they draw up a parental agreement. This indicated that if she came back and things didn't work out, she could have custody of the children and return to England. The agreement never came into play, because she never returned, and it was never signed.
But at the April hearing it came back to haunt him. "The father suggested ... it was merely a means of getting the family back to New Zealand and he didn't think about the consequences," Justice Moylan found. "I consider it an example of the father adjusting his evidence to suit his current case."
His actions in January - which included splitting the finances and email discussions about shipping possessions and toys and payments for schooling - established "an active acquiescence in the children remaining in England".
The father's position changed only after he was advised (on January 22) about the Hague Convention, said Justice Moylan.
Which is exactly the father's point: he acted in the belief that he had no rights and, before Christmas, on the basis of his wife's reassurances that she would be coming home.
While planning an appeal, the husband is contemplating other options to maintain contact with his children - ranging from a webcam to moving permanently to England. An appeal could cost up to $15,000 plus, should it fail, his wife's legal costs.
Outwardly, he remains calm. "My life's been turned upside down. I've learned a lot about myself and how precious your children are."
Family law expert Professor Mark Henaghan says it's not uncommon for applications to fail because, in trying to be conciliatory, partners do not make it clear that their bottom line is continued access to their children in the country they were living in.
"I advise people to be very clear in every email or letter - so it's in writing.
"If you [separate] overseas, don't leave things up in the air."
The number of Hague Convention applications in the past five years has varied from a low of 62 in 2003 to 92 last year, when there was a spike in applicants trying to get children back from Australia.
We can expect more cases as the workforce goes ever more global and with people delaying their OE until their 30s - when they are more likely to be looking to start a family. Is the convention up to the task?
Barrister Emma Parsons admits to a love-hate relationship with the agreement.
"A family break-up is miserable when it's within the country. Add the fact you're never going to see your kids again and then the costs ... "
Queen's Counsel Colin Pidgeon says the issue of domestic violence and child abuse cases was discussed last September by Hague signatories but the alternatives have their own weak points.
"What's in place is probably the best of a bad job."
