Technical Matter Guide
Law and procedure checked 22 September 2026Holiday arrangements and travel: when does a disagreement become a court issue?
Family-court holiday disputes range from a disagreement about which parent has the first week of Easter to an urgent application seeking to prevent a child leaving the United Kingdom. The first task is to identify what the current order permits, what consent is legally required and what welfare issue the court is actually being asked to decide.
Dividing school-holiday time
A Child Arrangements Order can regulate when a child lives or spends time with each parent during school holidays as well as during term time.
The difficulty is often not the principle that holidays should be shared. It is the absence of a workable mechanism for deciding the actual dates.
AZ v BX [2024] EWHC 1528 (Fam): “agree between yourselves” may not be enough
The High Court considered an order providing for equal school-holiday time while leaving the dates to parental agreement.
The trial judge had also found that the parents could not work together adequately. Against that factual background, the High Court concluded it was irrational to leave the holiday arrangement without a defined default mechanism because that was likely to generate uncertainty, animosity and further litigation.
The substituted order therefore provided equal holiday time, an advance deadline for written agreement and a defined alternating arrangement if agreement was not reached.
A workable holiday clause may need to identify
- which school calendar determines the holiday;
- when the holiday legally starts and ends;
- which parent has the first period in odd and even years;
- the handover date, time and place;
- how odd numbers of nights are dealt with;
- whether longer summer blocks are permitted;
- when proposed holiday dates must be notified;
- and the fallback arrangement if agreement is not reached.
Taking a child abroad: when is permission required?
The general rule
Where the statutory exception does not apply, a person proposing to take a child abroad ordinarily requires the consent of everyone with parental responsibility or permission from the court.
GOV.UK expressly warns that taking a child abroad without the required permission is child abduction.
AZ v BX: the form of the Child Arrangements Order can affect overseas travel
One reason the High Court considered the distinction between a shared lives-with order and a lives-with/spends-time-with order was section 13.
The children regularly travelled abroad. A shared lives-with order placed the parents on the same statutory footing in relation to temporary overseas holidays, whereas the father's previous spends-time-with status did not.
Written consent is sensible even where agreement is clear
GOV.UK advises that a letter from another person with parental responsibility is usually sufficient evidence of permission. It can include:
- the child's details;
- destination;
- departure and return dates;
- the consenting person's contact details;
- and confirmation that they consent to the trip.
Border authorities or the destination country may require additional documentation. A parent should check passport, visa, immigration and entry requirements separately.
Specific Issue Orders, Prohibited Steps Orders and passports
Section 8 of the Children Act gives the court tools for resolving focused parental responsibility disputes.
Specific Issue Order
May be used to determine a particular question, including whether a proposed holiday abroad should be permitted where necessary.
Prohibited Steps Order
Can prohibit a parent from taking a specified step in exercising parental responsibility — including removing the child from the jurisdiction where justified.
An application for a Child Arrangements Order, Specific Issue Order or Prohibited Steps Order is ordinarily made using Form C100, subject to the procedural position of the existing proceedings.
Passports often become part of the order
A travel dispute may involve questions about:
- who retains the child's passport;
- when it must be handed over before travel;
- when it must be returned afterwards;
- whether another passport may be applied for;
- whether foreign passports exist or may be obtained;
- and whether passport arrangements form part of a wider protective order.
TM v GL [2026] EWFC 24 (B): a practical passport and travel mechanism
In this recent first-instance decision, the parties agreed that the mother would hold the child's passport and there was no objection in principle to the father's overseas holidays.
To prevent repeat disputes, the order required the father to give 14 days' notice with travel and accommodation information; the mother had to provide the passport no later than seven days before travel; and the father had to return it after the trip.
The judge noted that equivalent provisions were unnecessary for the mother because her lives-with order engaged the temporary-removal provision, subject to the spending-time arrangements.
Emergency applications
If there is credible evidence that a child may imminently be removed from the UK in breach of another person's rights or an existing order, urgent court intervention may be required.
Whether an application should be made without notice depends on the circumstances. Urgency alone does not remove the obligation to provide the court with full and fair information, including material that may undermine the application.
When the concern is that the child may not come back
A genuine non-return concern changes the nature of a holiday dispute.
The court may need to consider both the probability of wrongful retention and the consequences if the risk materialises.
Relevant issues may include
- the proposed destination;
- whether it participates in the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention;
- the travelling parent's connections with that country;
- previous statements about moving or not returning;
- past compliance with court orders and overseas trips;
- the child's nationality and any foreign passports;
- the legal system in the destination country;
- whether English orders are likely to be recognised or enforceable;
- the practical ability to secure return if the child is retained;
- and the effectiveness of any proposed safeguard.
Re R (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1115: non-Hague holidays require rigorous risk analysis
Re R concerned proposed temporary removal to Kenya, which was not then a state operating the 1980 Hague Convention with the United Kingdom for the purposes of the case.
The Court of Appeal allowed the father's appeal against permission for the trip and reinstated a Prohibited Steps Order.
It stressed the importance of clear and reliable expert evidence where the court needs to understand the effectiveness of safeguards and the practical legal position if a child is wrongfully retained in a non-Convention country.
B v A [2019] EWHC 2613 (Fam): risk must be assessed on evidence, not destination alone
B v A concerned a proposed holiday to the Kurdistan region of Iraq and an application for a Prohibited Steps Order.
The proposed destination was outside the Hague Convention return framework. Expert evidence was obtained about the relevant legal system and the practical means of return if the child were retained.
The case demonstrates that the court's task is a welfare and risk assessment based on the actual evidence: the destination, the risk of non-return, the consequences of retention, the parent's reliability and the safeguards available.
Possible safeguards
Depending entirely on the case and destination, a court may consider measures such as:
- detailed travel and accommodation information;
- return-flight evidence;
- undertakings;
- orders recognised or mirrored in the destination jurisdiction where practicable;
- financial or documentary safeguards;
- passport arrangements;
- contact details while abroad;
- and legal evidence about enforceability and return mechanisms.
Evidence and practical drafting
For an ordinary holiday dispute
| Issue | Useful information |
|---|---|
| Current order | The exact term-time and school-holiday provisions currently in force. |
| School calendar | Official term dates rather than assumptions about when a holiday starts. |
| Proposed dates | Departure, return, handover and any overlap with the other parent's ordered time. |
| Destination | Country, city, accommodation and purpose of the trip. |
| Travel details | Flights, ferries, transport arrangements and return booking where relevant. |
| Passport arrangements | Who holds the passport and when it needs to be transferred. |
| Previous holidays | Past successful trips or previous problems may be relevant to practical risk. |
Make the proposal specific
If seeking court permission, avoid asking merely for “permission to go abroad”. Identify:
- the destination;
- departure date;
- return date;
- who will travel;
- where the child will stay;
- travel details;
- how the child can communicate with the other parent;
- passport arrangements;
- and any safeguards proposed.
If the problem is holiday allocation rather than travel
Draft the solution around the child's calendar, not adult slogans such as “half the holidays”.
Consider a table setting out:
- each holiday period;
- how many nights it contains;
- the proposed split;
- which parent receives the first period in odd/even years;
- handover mechanics;
- the notice period for overseas travel;
- and the default position if agreement is not reached.
If an ordered holiday is then prevented
That may become an enforcement issue. Where a qualifying breach causes actual financial loss, the Children Act enforcement framework also contains a compensation mechanism.
Preserve receipts, booking conditions, cancellation information and correspondence showing why the loss was incurred.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.
© 2026 JSH Law Ltd. All rights reserved.