Child Relocation Comparative Guide

1. Legislative framework

1.1 What local legislative and/or regulatory provisions govern child relocation in your jurisdiction?

The Children Act 1989.

1.2 Do any bilateral or multilateral instruments or treaties with effect in your jurisdiction have relevance to child relocation?

No.

1.3 Which administrative bodies are responsible for implementing and enforcing the applicable regime in your jurisdiction? What is their general approach in doing so?

The Family Court. See question 4 for further details.

2. Parental responsibility

2.1 How is the principle of parental responsibility defined in your jurisdiction and what does it encompass?

'Parental responsibility' is defined in Section 3(1) of the Children Act 1989 as all rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority that, by law, a parent of a child has in relation to the child and their property. The fact that both parents retain parental responsibility gives them, in theory, an equal say in major decisions in the child's life (eg, schooling, religious upbringing and medical treatment).

The Children Act 1989 governs:

who automatically acquires parental responsibility for a child at the child's birth; and
how parental responsibility may be acquired in other circumstances.

2.2 Who has parental responsibility in your jurisdiction and how is it acquired?

The following individuals automatically acquire parental responsibility for a child at birth:

the child's father and mother who were married to each other (and, from 2 December 2019, civil partners of each other at the time of the birth);
a child's mother (if unmarried/not in a civil partnership with the father at the time of the birth); and
in relation to a child conceived after 6 April 2009, a child's mother and the mother's civil partner who is a parent (by virtue of Section 42 or 43 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008).

Unmarried fathers may acquire parental responsibility if they:

marry (or from 2 December 2019, enter into a civil partnership with) the mother of the child;
enter into a parental responsibility agreement with the mother;
since 1 December 2003, become registered as the child's father;
obtain a parental responsibility order from the court;
are appointed as a guardian on the mother's death;
are named as person with whom the child is to live in a child arrangements order (CAO). In this circumstance, the father must be given parental responsibility; or
are named as person with whom the child is to spend time/otherwise have contact with in a CAO. In this circumstance, the father may be given parental responsibility.

Parental responsibility may also be acquired:

by adoption or the making of a special guardianship order; or
by agreement with all those people who have parental responsibility for the child.

Since 30 December 2005, a step-parent who is married to, or is the civil partner of, a parent of a child who has parental responsibility can:

apply for a parental responsibility order; or
enter into a parental responsibility agreement.

This is the result of changes arising from the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The aim is to provide an alternative route to acquire parental responsibility to adoption. An advantage is that, unlike adoption, it:

does not remove parental responsibility from the other birth parent; and
does not legally separate the child from the family of the other birth parent.

When making an order for parental responsibility, the child's welfare must be the court's primary consideration. When determining whether an order is in the child's best interests, the court must consider the welfare checklist set out in Section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989. The factors to be considered include:

the child's physical, emotional and educational needs; and
the capacity of each parent to meet those needs.

The wishes of the child may be taken into consideration if they are of sufficient age and understanding. The court must give consideration to the 'delay' and 'no order' principles under Sections 1(2) and 1(5) of the Children Act 1989 respectively. These state that:

any delay in proceedings is likely to be prejudicial to the welfare of the child; and
the court should make an order only if it is better for the child than if no order were made.

2.3 How does the regime apply in relation to the following family structures? (a) Civil partnerships, (b) Blended families, (c) Adoption, (d) Surrogacy and (e) Same-sex parents

See question 2.2.

3. Permission to relocate

3.1 When must a parent seek permission to relocate and from whom? Does this vary depending on: (a) Whether the parent is planning to relocate within the jurisdiction or outside the jurisdiction? and (b) Whether the removal is temporary or permanent?

Within the jurisdiction: If there is a child arrangements order (CAO) regulating with whom a child lives, the child cannot be removed from the United Kingdom without:

the court's permission; or
the consent of those who have parental responsibility (Section 13 of the Children Act 1989).

'The United Kingdom' is defined as Great Britain (ie, England, Wales and Scotland) and Northern Ireland, but excludes the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands (Section 5 and Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978). Statute places no requirements on a person if they want to permanently relocate a child from one part of the United Kingdom to another (eg, from London to Glasgow). However, case law provides guidance about the correct approach to internal relocation disputes, which is to apply for a specific issue order under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989.

Outside the jurisdiction: A parent who shares parental responsibility with another parent cannot remove a child under the age of 16 from the jurisdiction without either:

the written consent of that person; or
the permission of the court.

The rules and procedure differ depending on whether a CAO is in place. An unmarried father without parental responsibility can apply to prevent the removal of a child by making an application for a prohibited steps order under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989.

Regarding temporary removals, where there is a CAO in place, a person named as a person with whom a child lives can take the child out of the United Kingdom for a period of up to one month. This allows for holidays without the need to seek:

permission of the court; or
the consent or any other person.

This is not the case if there is no 'live with' CAO in force. If the trip is for more than one month, the person with whom the child lives under the CAO needs:

the written consent of anyone else with parental responsibility; or
the permission of the court.

The destination of any trip will be a significant factor in the court's decision making – it will be harder to persuade a court to permit temporary removal if:

the destination country is not a Hague Child Abduction Convention state; or
there are no methods for recognition/enforcement of its orders in the destination country.

Appropriate safeguards may be required to ensure the return of the child.

Applications for permanent leave to remove are governed by the welfare principle as set out in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989. Until recently, the courts have endorsed the approach taken in Payne [2001] 1 FLR 1052, in which, as well as considering the welfare of the child and whether the application was genuine, the court looked at the impact of refusing the application on the parent making the application. However, in K v K (Children) (Removal from Jurisdiction) [2011] EWCA Civ 793, the Court of Appeal held that the only principle to be extracted from Payne is that the child's welfare is to be afforded paramount consideration. Since then, in Re F (A Child) (International Relocation Cases) [2015] EWCA Civ 882, the Court of Appeal has clarified that the court must:

undertake a "global holistic evaluation" by weighing up all the relevant factors;
look at the case as a whole; and
determine the course that best meets the need to give paramount consideration to the child's welfare.

3.2 If the other parent agrees to the relocation, what formal requirements apply in this regard?

For temporary, international relocations, it is sensible to ensure that all those with parental responsibility give written permission that they agree to the child travelling overseas. Where there is a CAO in force, this written permission is not strictly necessary, unless the time out of England and Wales is more than one month.

For permanent, international relocations, not only is it sensible (or even necessary) to obtain written permission but embodying that agreement into a consent order ensures that the agreement is legally binding.

3.3 Where permission to relocate is refused by the other parent, either fully or partially, what avenues are open to the relocating parent to resolve the issue?

Although it can be difficult to compromise in relocation disputes, mediation can help some parents to:

agree on a more creative solution than would likely be imposed on them by the court process; and
avoid the full court experience, which can be expensive and emotionally damaging for all.

Where the children are aged 10 or over, child-inclusive mediation may be a helpful way to provide them with a forum to voice their wishes or concerns.

The arbitration scheme for private law children cases was launched in July 2016 and initially included only relocation cases within the United Kingdom. However, in April 2020 it was broadened to include international cases where the proposed destination state has acceded to the 1980 Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Arbitration is therefore now available for a large number of relocation cases and has some clear advantages. In particular, the process is much quicker, which can be particularly important in a relocation case which needs to be resolved by a certain point – for example, before the end of the child's school year.

Alternatively, it is open to the relocating to apply to the Family Court for a specific issue order.

3.4 What are the legal consequences of failure to obtain permission to relocate?

Failure to obtain permission can lead to serious legal consequences. Depending on the circumstances, these can include:

accusations of child abduction;
potential criminal charges; and
court applications for the child's return.

4. Relocation Application

4.1 With which bodies are relocation applications filed?

The Family Court.

4.2 What are the formal requirements for filing a relocation application?

The relocating parent must apply for a specific issue order under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989. A specific issue order gives directions to deal with a specific question which has arisen, or which may arise, in connection with any aspect of parental responsibility for a child.

Parents do not need the court's permission to make an application. A specific court form – Form C100 – is used, which can be completed online and sent electronically to the court. The application will be processed by a central team that:

deals with the initial checks; and
ensures that the correct court fee has been paid.

The application is then passed to a court nearer to where the child lives.

Urgent applications can be processed more quickly if they are submitted online rather than on paper.

Supplemental Form C1A must be completed where it is alleged that the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering from domestic abuse or violence. This can include damage to health (physical or mental) or development (physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural), including damage suffered from witnessing the ill treatment of another.

However, before making the application, the parent must either:

have attended a mediation information and assessment meeting; or
be able to validly claim an exemption from needing to do so.

4.3 How does the process unfold and what are the typical timeframes?

In non-urgent cases, once the application has been issued, a 30-minute directions hearing –known as a 'first hearing dispute resolution appointment' (FHDRA) – is listed. This could be anything up to eight weeks or more after the application is issued.

Before the FHDRA takes place, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) will undertake safeguarding checks and enquiries which help to inform the court of any risk of harm to the child. The parties must also complete a form setting out their views on the use of out-of-court dispute resolution options such as mediation or arbitration.

The FHDRA is the first court hearing. It is held to assist the court in:

identifying the issues between the parties at an early stage; and
determining whether the parties are capable of reaching an agreement.

A CAFCASS officer should be present as well. If the parties can reach an agreement at the FHDRA, the court may issue a final order outlining the terms of the agreement if it believes that this is in the best interests of the children. If the parties are unable to reach agreement, the court will:

look into the areas where they disagree and why; and
give directions as to how to move forward.

The second court hearing is the dispute resolution appointment (DRA). Sometimes an expert report will be produced in advance of the DRA if this will help the court to understand the issues. A judge will offer their 'early neutral evaluation' of the likely outcome of the application and will seek to help the parties resolve, or at least narrow, the issues in dispute. Again, if the parties reach agreement at the FHDRA, the court can make a final order.

If the parties are still unable to reach an agreement, the third and final hearing takes place. Here, the judge will consider all the available evidence, including:

evidence provided by the parties;
any relevant CAFCASS reports; and
information provided by the local authority.

If there has been a fact-finding hearing (used to decide whether alleged incidents have occurred), the judge will consider any findings made during those proceedings.

Using all of this information, the judge will assess and make a decision based on the best interests of the child in question.

4.4 What costs are involved in filing a relocation application?

Relocation applications – whether internal or international – can be legally and procedurally complex, often involving:

detailed evidence;
expert reports; and
contested hearings.

As such, the costs can vary significantly depending on:

the circumstances of the case; and
the level of legal representation involved.

Assuming that an application is fully contested and a final hearing is needed, an application for an international relocation could incur costs of £50,000.

4.5 How are the following factors weighed in deciding on a relocation application? (a) The views and preferences of the child, (b) The age and maturity of the child, (c) The needs of the child, (d) The importance of family unity, (e) The loss of a relationship with the remaining parent, (f) The desire of the relocating parent to move, (g) How settled the child is in the home jurisdiction, (h) The parents' immigration status and ties to both the jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of relocation, (i) The relocating parent's plans post-relocation and (j) Other

The sole principle that these cases should be decided on is the welfare of the child (Section 1(3) of the Children Act 1989).

The court will undertake a global holistic welfare evaluation to determine where the child's interests lie. This involves:

analysing each individual welfare option before the court;
weighing its positives and negatives; and
compared the competing option or options.

Each case will be decided on its own facts.

The court will resist attempts to categorise cases on the basis of:

time spent by the child with either parent; or
the label applied to day-to-day care arrangements.

4.6 On what grounds can the application for relocation be opposed and by whom?

Broadly, a relocation application can be opposed by anyone with parental responsibility for the child, such as the other parent or a guardian.

The core argument against relocation is that it is not in the child's best interests. This involves demonstrating potential negative impacts on the child. These could include:

the loss of meaningful contact with the left-behind parent, strained communication and difficulties in maintaining a strong bond;
the impact of changing schools, potential disruption to their learning and the challenges of integrating into a new educational system;
the loss of friends, community connections and the disruption of established routines;
the stress and anxiety associated with relocation, especially if the child is young or has experienced trauma; and
practical difficulties such as:
- how contact will be maintained;
- the financial consequences of the relocation; and
- the suitability of the new living arrangements

The left-behind parent may also argue that the relocation is not genuinely motivated by the relocating parent's needs but rather by a desire to exclude the other parent from the child's life.

4.7 If the application to relocate is granted, can this be made subject to conditions or restrictions?

Yes, this is possible but it will be case specific. For example, permission to relocate can be made conditional on the relocating parent making financial provision for the left-behind parent to establish a home overseas in order to maintain a role in the child's life. In S v S (Relocation) [2017] EWHC 2345 (Fam permission was granted for a father to relocate children aged 15 and 13 to Switzerland, where they would live with both parents under an unequal division of time.

5. Child abduction

5.1 Is child abduction a criminal offence in your jurisdiction? If so, how is it defined and what does it encompass?

Yes. The Child Abduction Act 1984 creates the criminal offence of child abduction. Section 1(3) provides that a parent or person with custody of a child under 16 years of age commits an offence if they take or send the child out of the United Kingdom without one of the following:

the consent of all people with parental responsibility;
the consent of the people with custody of the child; or
the permission of the court.

Under Section 1(5), it is a defence to a charge of child abduction if the accused person can show that they took or sent the child out of the United Kingdom in circumstances where one of the following applies:

The other people with parental responsibility consented, or would consent, if they were aware of all relevant circumstances;
The accused person took all reasonable steps to communicate with the other people with parental responsibility but was unable to communicate with them; or
The other people with parental responsibility unreasonably refused to consent.

Since criminal proceedings cannot begin without the consent of the director of public prosecutions, it is not possible to begin a private prosecution alleging child abduction.

5.2 What are the likely penalties for this criminal offence?

The maximum penalty for child abduction is seven years in prison. However, the severity of the punishment will vary depending on the circumstances of the case.

5.3 Where a child has been abducted to your jurisdiction, what steps can be taken to secure his or her return? Should the left-behind parent pursue these steps in the home jurisdiction or your jurisdiction?

Child abduction law is complex and what follows is a very broad overview.

First, there are two types of international parental child abduction:

wrongful removal, where a child is taken out of their home country without the consent of both parents or a court order; and
wrongful retention, where both parents agree that the child can leave the country for a short period of time, such as a holiday, but the child does not come back at the end of the trip.

This difference is important because in England and Wales, wrongful removal of a child is a criminal offence but wrongful retention is not. This means that the police can provide assistance when a child has been wrongfully removed but are unlikely to be able to do so if the child has been wrongfully retained.

Having first established the type of abduction, it is then important to determine whether the child's usual country of residence is a signatory to the Hague Child Abduction Convention 1980. England and Wales is a signatory, as are over 100 other countries. Where both countries are signatories to the Hague Convention, the return order application is called a 'Hague Convention return'. Where the other country is not a signatory, the application is referred to as a 'non-Hague Convention return'.

Hague Convention returns: The Hague Convention is designed to:

protect children from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention; and
establish procedures to ensure their swift and immediate return to their country of habitual residence.

Each signatory country to the convention designates a central authority to initiate or facilitate the start of judicial or administrative proceedings with a view to returning the child so that the courts in their 'home' country can decide on the long-term arrangements.

The initial application for the child's return under the convention must be made via the central authority in the child's home country. The application will be processed and sent to the central authority in England and Wales – the International Child Abduction Contact Unit (ICACU). Applicants will be automatically eligible for non-means tested legal aid. The ICACU maintains a panel of accredited specialists and will make a referral to one of those specialists on behalf of the applicant.

Under the convention, the respondent (the alleged abducting parent) can offer the following defences:

The left-behind parent consented or subsequently acquiesced to the child's removal or retention.
The left-behind parent was not exercising rights of custody at the time of the removal or retention.
There is a grave risk of physical or psychological harm to the child, or return would place the child in an intolerable situation.
The child objects to a return and has reached a sufficient age and degree of maturity for their views to be taken into account.
The child has been in England and Wales for more than a year and is settled in the jurisdiction.

If one or more of these defences is made out, the court can exercise wide discretion.

Non-Hague Convention returns: If the child's home country is not a signatory to the Hague Child Abduction Convention 1980, there are no central authorities and there is no non-means tested legal aid. Instead, proceedings must be started directly in the High Court for an application for the summary return of the child under the wardship or inherent jurisdiction.

5.4 How do these processes unfold and what are the typical timelines?

The intention is that these cases (Hague and non-Hague returns) be dealt with quickly by the courts. The aim is to have them concluded within six weeks of the date of the application, unless exceptional circumstances make this impossible. Where possible, the court will also encourage the parties to engage in mediation to resolve their dispute.

All applications start with a first hearing in the High Court, usually within the first week. At that hearing, the court sets out how the case will progress towards a final hearing. This could include a direction that:

the parties investigate mediation; or
specific expert evidence be provided to the court.

How the child will be heard in the proceedings will also be considered and, depending on the circumstances, it may be appropriate for the child to be joined as a party. The court has strong case management powers and any adjournment can be for no more than 30 days.

Interim orders can be sought urgently to:

protect or locate the child; or
prevent any onward abduction.

The final hearing should take place within a matter of weeks. Oral evidence is uncommon and the applicant is not expected to attend the hearing (although the increase in availability of remote hearings has made this possible).

5.5 What costs are involved for the left-behind parent?

If the child has been taken to a Hague Convention country, the left-behind parent in England is potentially looking at costs of over £30,000, depending on:

the complexity of the case; and
whether or not the return is contested.

Legal aid is generally available in England and Wales for left-behind parents applying under the Hague Convention, subject to a means and merits test.

If a parent overseas is seeking the return of a child who has been abducted to England, legal costs could be in the region of £30,000 or more – especially if the case involves:

expert evidence;
contested hearings; or
protective measures.

Legal aid may be available to the overseas parent – even if they are not UK resident – provided that:

the proceedings are in England and Wales; and
the applicant passes the means and merits test.

Where a non-Hague Convention country is involved and the left-behind parent is in the United Kingdom, they cannot rely on the streamlined international legal process that the Hague Convention provides. Instead, they must pursue remedies through:

bilateral agreements (if any exist);
domestic courts in the foreign country; and
diplomatic channels or consular support.

These routes are typically more expensive due to:

the need for local legal representation abroad as well as legal advice in England;
translation and notarisation of documents;
travel and accommodation costs; and
extended timelines and procedural uncertainty.

Estimated costs range from £10,000 to £50,000 or more, depending on the complexity of the case. Legal aid may be available in England and Wales for advice and initial steps but will not cover legal costs incurred abroad. The left-behind parent may need to apply for legal aid in the country where the child has been taken – if such aid exists.

5.6 What factors will the court consider in deciding on an order to return the child? What defences are available for the return of child to the home jurisdiction?

Hague Convention returns: To ensure that the Hague Convention process works quickly (and that lengthy legal arguments are kept to a minimum):

few defences or exceptions have been built in; and
there is a strong presumption in favour of returning the child to their home country.

There is no opportunity for the court to engage a full welfare analysis and the court's discretion not to order the child's return is limited.

However, the courts do have discretion not to order the return of the child if the person who opposes the return can establish a defence (please see question 5.3). The most commonly pleaded defence is that there is a grave risk that the return would:

expose the child to physical or psychological harm; or
otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.

As a result, there is much judicial consideration about this defence.

Non-Hague Convention returns: The leading authority on non-Hague Convention returns is the decision of the House of Lords in Re J (A Child) (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) [2006] 1 AC 80. Although an application for return is still a summary application, the technical concepts of the convention do not directly apply and the decision is purely welfare-based. The child's welfare is the paramount consideration. The starting point in these cases is whether "it is likely to be better for a child to return to his home country for any disputes about his future to be decided there. A case against his doing so has to be made". Each case must be considered on its particular facts.

The court will look at the circumstances of the individual child, but the following factors may be taken into account:

The degree of connection between the child and each country: This involves consideration of:
- where the child has lived; and
- the child's nationality, language, ethnicity, religion, culture and education.
The length of time spent in each country: If a child has already spent significant time in one country, it may be less disruptive to the child if they remain there while their medium and long-term future is decided.
The law in the foreign jurisdiction: For example, the absence of a 'relocation jurisdiction' in the other country (ie, if it would not be possible for the relevant parent to make an application equivalent to leave to remove) may mean that a full welfare inquiry should be conducted in the United Kingdom and summary return should not be ordered. (Foreign law is presumed to be the same as English law until the contrary is shown, so the burden is on the person resisting return to show that there is some feature of the legal system in the other country that threatens the child's welfare.)
The effect of the decision on the child's primary carer. There is recognition that a decision to return a child could significantly affect the primary carer – for example, if:
- they are unwilling to return; or
- the return would cause them hardship.

5.7 Apart from an order to return the child, what orders are typically made in these processes for all parties involved – the child, the left-behind parent and the abductor?

Depending on the circumstances, other potential orders can include the following:

Location order: If the whereabouts of the abductor and child are unknown, a location order can be issued to help locate them. This may involve disclosure orders from various bodies to obtain information, such as:
- government departments;
- health authorities; and
- banks.
Passport order: If the child's whereabouts are known but there is concern about the abductor potentially travelling with the child, a passport order can be sought to seize the child's passport and prevent further travel.
Prohibited steps order: This order prohibits the removal of the child from the jurisdiction, preventing the abductor from taking the child abroad or to another part of the country.
Collection order: This order is used if a return order is not complied with, allowing for the child to be collected from the abductor's location.
Disclosure orders: These orders can compel individuals or organisations to disclose information about the child's whereabouts.
Port alert: This notifies travel hubs such as airports, to prevent the child from travelling.

5.8 Will any other government authorities be involved or called for assistance?

Police: The first point of contact is usually the local police, who can investigate and potentially take action such as issuing a port alert to prevent the child from being taken abroad.

International Child Abduction Contact Unit (ICACU): If the child has been taken to a country that is part of the 1980 Hague Convention, the ICACU – the central authority for England and Wales – can assist in seeking the child's return.

Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office (FCDO): The FCDO can offer consular support if the child has been taken abroad, helping with:

finding lawyers;
contacting overseas authorities; and
potentially facilitating travel.

Interpol: If the child is known to be abroad but their location is unknown, the police can request the help of Interpol to locate them.

National Border Targeting Centre: If there is a risk that a child is likely to be taken abroad within 48 hours, the police can contact the National Border Targeting Centre and ask it to alert all points of departure from the United Kingdom (ports and airports), to try to prevent the child being taken out of the country. This port alert remains live for 28 days.

6. Trends and predictions

6.1 How would you describe the current child relocation landscape and prevailing trends in your jurisdiction? Are any new developments anticipated in the next 12 months, including any proposed legislative reforms?

The number of child abductions reported to the police has been steadily increasing and topped 1,100 in 2024. Anecdotally, about 50% of abductions are reported in London. In 2023, the International Child Abduction Contact Unit dealt with 971 applications under the Hague Convention 1980, of which:

one-third concerned children who had been abducted to England; and
two-thirds concerned children who had been abducted out of England.

There is some anecdotal concern that delays being experienced elsewhere in the court system could lead to parents deciding to take matters into their own hands.

7. Tips and traps

7.1 What are your top tips for seeking the return of a child in your jurisdiction and what potential sticking points would you highlight?

Top tips:

Act quickly.
Take urgent legal advice from a specialist in both England and Wales and the country your child is in.
If you believe that your child has been abducted, contact the police.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.