Technical Matter Guide
Law, procedure and authorities checked 22 September 2026International relocation: welfare, permission and building a workable plan
A parent seeking to move a child's permanent home abroad is asking the Family Court to approve a major change in the child's upbringing. The parent opposing the move is asking the court to preserve a different future. Neither starts with a legal presumption in their favour. The court must identify the realistic options, evaluate each of them and decide which best promotes the child's welfare.
Permission to relocate and the legal test
Permanent removal is different from temporary travel
Where a Child Arrangements Order provides that the child lives with a person, section 13 of the Children Act 1989 restricts removing the child from the United Kingdom without the required written consent or permission of the court.
The limited statutory ability of a person named as someone with whom the child lives to take the child abroad for a short period does not authorise permanent relocation.
Welfare is the only substantive test
In Re O (Domestic Abuse: International Relocation) [2025] EWCA Civ 888, the Court of Appeal restated the modern law: whether the application is advanced under section 8 or section 13(1)(b), the child's welfare is paramount.
The welfare checklist in section 1(3) should inform the analysis even where it is not technically mandated by the statutory route used.
Re F (International Relocation Cases) [2015] EWCA Civ 882
Re F reinforced the modern approach following K v K. The court must undertake a global, holistic welfare evaluation.
Earlier guidance such as that in Payne v Payne can remain useful in identifying potentially relevant considerations, but it does not create presumptions or rules which displace the statutory welfare exercise.
The court must compare the realistic options
A relocation decision should not be made by asking only whether the move has advantages.
The court must compare what the child's life would realistically look like under each available option.
Option A: relocation is permitted
- Where will the child live?
- What school will they attend?
- What immigration status will they have?
- What healthcare is available?
- Who provides support?
- How will the left-behind relationship continue?
- What travel is realistic?
- How will orders be enforced?
Option B: relocation is refused
- Where will the child live?
- Can the relocating parent realistically remain?
- What housing and employment will exist?
- What effect will refusal have on caregiving?
- Will care transfer to the other parent?
- What happens to schooling?
- How sustainable is the proposed status quo?
Re S-O (Children) [2026] EWCA Civ 998: both futures must actually be analysed
The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal after concluding that the judge's welfare analysis of an international relocation application was insufficient.
The judgment had examined the relocation proposal but had not adequately analysed the competing option or compared the positives and negatives of the available alternatives side by side.
The Court of Appeal stressed that the analysis is not complete merely because the court has identified disadvantages in the relocation proposal. The alternative future for the child must also be examined.
The impact on the relocating parent can matter — because of its effect on the child
The adult's interests are not paramount. But the effect of granting or refusing the application may affect the parent's housing, finances, emotional wellbeing, employment, support network and ability to care for the child.
Those consequences are relevant insofar as they affect the child's welfare.
The relocation plan: evidence, not aspiration
A relocation application is much stronger when the court can see how the child's life will actually operate rather than being presented with a general hope that life abroad will be better.
| Issue | Evidence to consider |
|---|---|
| Immigration status | What right will the child and relocating parent have to enter and remain in the destination country? |
| Housing | Proposed address, security of tenure, affordability, bedrooms, local area and likely stability. |
| Education | School availability, curriculum, language, fees, admissions, SEND provision and transition arrangements. |
| Healthcare | Access to ordinary, specialist, therapeutic and emergency healthcare where relevant. |
| Employment & finances | Income, employment security, childcare costs, school fees, travel costs and practical sustainability. |
| Support network | Who lives in the destination country and what help they will actually provide. |
| Culture & language | Language ability, cultural adjustment, religion and the child's existing connection with the proposed country. |
| Future contact | School-holiday blocks, travel frequency, video communication, accommodation and who funds travel. |
| Enforcement | Whether English orders will be recognised or enforceable and what mechanisms exist if future arrangements break down. |
| Child's wishes | Their ascertainable wishes and feelings considered in light of age and understanding. |
The future relationship with the parent left behind
Relocation does not make the other parent's relationship a secondary issue. A credible proposal should consider:
- how many physical visits are realistically possible each year;
- whether visits take place in England, abroad or both;
- who accompanies a younger child during travel;
- who pays airfares and associated travel costs;
- passport and travel-document arrangements;
- where the visiting parent stays;
- how school holidays are divided;
- telephone and video communication;
- time-zone differences;
- access to school and medical information;
- and how important decisions will continue to be communicated.
Re C (A Child: Relocation to Sweden) [2026] EWHC 2013 (Fam)
C had lived in Sweden for most of her life before coming to England for an intended temporary but prolonged period with her father.
By the time of the welfare hearing she was nine, her wishes to return to Sweden were clear, and the court considered her history, relationships, housing, schooling, family network, cultural connection and future time with her father.
The court permitted relocation. Importantly, the judgment distinguishes the earlier Hague return proceedings — which did not involve a full welfare assessment — from the subsequent relocation proceedings where welfare was the central question.
Domestic abuse, foreign jurisdiction and international safeguards
PD12J applies to relocation cases
Re O [2025] makes clear that domestic abuse does not become less important because the dispute concerns international relocation.
Where abuse is alleged or established, PD12J must be applied in the ordinary way. The court considers which allegations are relevant, whether findings are required and how the identified abuse affects welfare and risk.
Re O (Domestic Abuse: International Relocation) [2025] EWCA Civ 888
The Court of Appeal upheld permission for a mother and two children to relocate to the UAE following serious findings of domestic abuse.
The Court emphasised that where domestic abuse is established, the court may need to consider whether the abuse remains ongoing, how the victims can be protected in each jurisdiction, the extent to which the abuse has informed the application, the support available in each country and how future contact can take place safely.
Hague and non-Hague destinations
The destination country's international treaty position can be highly important.
Relevant questions may include:
- whether the destination participates in the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention;
- whether the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention applies;
- whether an English Child Arrangements Order will be recognised;
- how it could be enforced;
- what court would have jurisdiction after relocation;
- what parental-responsibility rights exist under local law;
- and what remedies would exist if agreed contact ceased.
Non-Hague countries may require specialist foreign-law evidence
Where the destination lacks an effective treaty return or enforcement regime, the court may require evidence about the foreign legal system and the practical effectiveness of proposed safeguards.
This may involve an appropriately qualified foreign-law expert. Expert evidence in family proceedings is controlled by Part 25 of the Family Procedure Rules and should not simply be commissioned on the assumption that the court will admit or rely on it.
M v F (Domestic Abuse: International Relocation) [2025] EWFC 360
This case involved serious domestic-abuse allegations and proposed relocation to a country which was not a signatory to the 1980 Hague Convention.
The court received expert evidence about what would happen if future child-arrangements orders were not complied with abroad.
The judgment illustrates why the practical legal position in the destination jurisdiction can become a central part of the relocation evidence rather than an afterthought.
Protective measures must be practical
Depending on the jurisdiction and facts, safeguards may include:
- undertakings;
- mirror or recognition orders abroad where available;
- passport arrangements;
- defined travel and contact terms;
- financial arrangements for flights;
- advance information about address and schooling;
- security or other enforceable arrangements in an appropriate case;
- and provisions governing future access to the child.
Procedure, applications and the final order
The form depends on the legal route
A parent opposing removal may seek protective orders
Depending on the circumstances, this may include a Prohibited Steps Order preventing removal pending determination of the substantive dispute.
But a Prohibited Steps Order must itself be justified by the evidence and the child's welfare.
Re S-O [2026]: fear of retention must have an evidential foundation
Alongside the relocation appeal, the Court of Appeal considered a Prohibited Steps Order preventing an older child from travelling to visit his mother in a Gulf state because of a suggested risk that she might not return him.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the evidence did not establish a sufficient risk to justify the restriction and discharged the order.
The case is useful because it distinguishes the potentially grave consequences of wrongful retention from the separate question of whether there is actually sufficient evidence that retention is likely.
The final order may need to deal with much more than permission to relocate
Depending on the case, the order may need to address:
- the date by which relocation may take place;
- the child's principal home;
- school arrangements;
- passport possession;
- holiday and direct-contact periods;
- who travels with the child;
- who pays travel costs;
- video and telephone contact;
- notice of travel;
- sharing school and medical information;
- undertakings or overseas protective measures;
- and arrangements pending implementation.
If permission is refused
The court should still identify what the child's future arrangements will be. Re S-O is particularly important here: refusal of relocation does not remove the need to decide which alternative welfare arrangement is to operate.
That may involve:
- the child continuing to live with the existing primary carer;
- a revised care arrangement;
- transfer or sharing of care;
- internal relocation;
- school changes;
- or other provisions necessary to make the non-relocation option workable.
© 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.