Safeguarding your child’s travel

Spring is when many families begin planning summer holidays, but for divorced or separated parents, international travel can pose unique challenges.

This is especially true when planning a trip to a country that has not signed the Hague Convention on Child Abduction.

What is the Hague Convention?

The Hague Convention on Child Abduction applies to children under the age of 16. It helps recover children who are wrongfully taken to another signatory country, typically by one parent. Signatories of the convention are required to return the child to their country of habitual residence and honour existing guardianship laws.

However, when a country has not signed the convention, the situation becomes more complicated.

The risks of travelling to non-Hague Convention countries

If a child is taken to a non-signatory country, the legal system there is not bound by international obligation to return the child. The parent who has removed the child could benefit from a legal system that may not provide the other parent with an effective remedy. This makes it difficult for the parent left behind to enforce UK court orders.

Here are some examples of case law that illustrate the complexities involved when seeking to take children on holiday to non-Hague Convention countries.

These cases highlight how UK courts assess the risks and benefits, taking into account the legal systems of the destination country and the potential impact on the child’s safety and welfare.

Re Do and Bo (Temporary Relocation to China) [2017]

In this case, the mother, a Chinese national, sought permission to take her children to China for a holiday. The father opposed, fearing the mother would not return. Since China is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, a UK court order could not compel the children’s return.

The judge concluded that the risk of the mother not returning was significant, and denied permission for the holiday.

A against B (Scottish Sheriff Court) [2016]

A father requested permission to take his children to Algeria for regular holidays, but the mother objected. Algerian law, rooted in Islamic principles, heavily favoured the father in guardianship decisions.

The court denied the father’s request, fearing the mother would have no legal recourse if the father decided not to return with the children.

M (A Child) (Temporary Removal to Kurdistan) [2017]

The court in this case considered a mother’s request to take her child to Kurdistan. The father opposed the trip, citing concerns for their child’s safety in a region with political unrest.

The court agreed, concluding that the risks to the child’s safety outweighed the benefits of meeting extended family, and refused permission for the trip.

Key takeaways

When considering a holiday to a non-Hague Convention country, courts must weigh the potential benefits of the trip, such as connecting with a child’s cultural heritage, against the risks of the child being kept abroad or exposed to danger.

Consulting legal experts in the destination country’s family law is crucial. Ultimately, the court’s decision will hinge on the safety and well-being of the child.