INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Alex Carruthers, Liam Bennett and Stacey De Souza, Hughes Fowler Carruthers
Practical considerations can also be significant, such as the size of a country in an internal relocation and the distance between the two countries in an interna - tional relocation. Moving from one side of Australia to the other, for example, could have a distinct impact on a child, but less so on a child moving 30 miles away. Travelling times can also be material; it may well be quicker and easier for one person to travel from London to visit another in Paris than it is to go to Northumberland. Post-Brexit, the UK is no longer subject to EU regula - tions. Potential issues might therefore arise in relation to an order previously made by an EU country in terms of enforceability. Equally, the removal of freedom of movement now makes it harder for people (particularly EU citizens) to spend significant time in the UK. Immi - gration has also become a more challenging issue in the UK, which makes some practicalities more difficult, whereas movement within the EU remains straightfor - ward. Specialist immigration advice is often essential before issuing relocation proceedings, as is taking all the necessary steps to secure the relevant visa or visas prior to any final hearing, so far as possible. The Family Procedure Rules in England now require parties to consider non-court dispute resolution before issuing private law applications relating to children. This pre-action protocol applies to parties wishing to make a relocation application, and it is therefore important to get advice at an early stage. The court also has the power to adjourn court proceedings if it considers that the parties have not engaged in non-court dispute res - olution when they should have. Given the binary nature of relocation disputes, resolution through mediation is rare, but not impossible. For those who can afford the cost of a private arbitrator, arbitration offers a fast-track approach to receiving a determination. Child abduction Where permission to relocate is not obtained (whether through the court or otherwise), the relocation of a child can result in child abduction. This is a criminal offence in many countries, and the child’s return will often be governed by the terms of the Hague Conven - tion of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of Inter - national Child Abduction (the 1980 Hague Conven - tion), a multilateral treaty relating to international child
abduction and supplemented by the Hague Conven - tion on parental responsibility and protection of chil - dren (HCCH 1996). As of 2026, there are 103 parties to the 1980 Hague Convention, including most Western countries and many others that have internationally recognised legal systems. Some countries, including India, Bangladesh and the UAE, are not signatories to the 1980 Hague Convention. Certain countries that are signatories (eg, Russia, Turkey and Mexico) may not always demonstrate compliance. This guide aims to provide some understanding of the broad principles that apply in such cases. In reality, the application of the 1980 Hague Convention within countries that are signatories will differ, as will the length of time taken to deal with such cases. The 1980 Hague Convention protects children from the harmful effects of abduction by a parent (ie, wrongful removal and retention across international bounda - ries). It encourages the prompt return of abducted children to their country of habitual residence and provides a procedure to bring about their return. The 1980 Hague Convention essentially operates on the principle that if there is a relocation without the consent of both parties, the child should be returned to the country from which they were taken, and any decisions about the child’s future residence and living arrangements should then be taken in that country. The existence of the 1980 Hague Convention dem - onstrates that the international community recognises the scale of the problem and the pressing need for a mechanism for returning children. Parents are best advised to act quickly to prevent an abduction if they believe that their child may be at risk – for example, by obtaining an order prevent - ing removal where available. Once a child has been wrongfully removed, the legal mechanisms for forcing a return can be protracted and require applications in various jurisdictions. It is better to act pre-emptively to avoid this difficult, lengthy and expensive process. Relocation applications are only going to become more frequent in our increasingly interconnected world and are something that parents and the courts in different jurisdictions are going to have to deal with.
7 C HILD RELOC AT I ON 20 26
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook