If your child has been taken from the United Kingdom to France, or kept in France after an agreed visit, the first legal question is usually not which parent should ultimately live with the child. It is whether the move or retention was wrongful under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Brexit changed some European family-law routes, but it did not remove the Hague Convention mechanism between the United Kingdom and France. The practical objective is to restore the child to the country of habitual residence so that the court best placed to decide long-term arrangements can do so.

This distinction matters in an urgent case. A French judge deciding a return application is not normally deciding the final merits of residence, contact or parental responsibility. The judge examines habitual residence, custody rights, consent, timing and the limited grounds for refusing return. A British parent therefore needs a focused evidence file, an accurate chronology and action on both sides of the Channel. The route may involve the UK Central Authority, the French Central Authority, the French public prosecutor and the French family court judge. This guide explains how those routes fit together, what to send, what can defeat or delay return, and what to do if the child’s location is uncertain. French expressions are translated at first use so that a British reader can use the correct wording when speaking to an authority or lawyer.

I. Can a British parent obtain the return of a child taken to France after Brexit?

A. When is a move or retention wrongful under the Hague Convention?

The starting point is the child’s habitual residence immediately before the removal or retention. “Habitual residence” is a factual concept. It is usually the country in which the child was settled and integrated in ordinary family life, not simply the country of nationality or the place where a parent owns a house. School or nursery attendance, the family home, medical care, friendships, activities, day-to-day care and the parents’ shared arrangements can all be relevant. A child can have British nationality and be habitually resident in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland; nationality by itself does not answer the question.

The 1980 Hague Convention deals with both a wrongful removal and a wrongful retention. Removal usually means taking the child out of the country of habitual residence without the consent of a person who held and was exercising custody rights. Retention usually arises when a child travelled lawfully, perhaps for a holiday, but was not returned when the agreed period ended. The parent who asks for return must identify the point at which the legal position changed. A clear return date, a school term, a booked return ticket, messages about the visit or a court order can be important evidence.

France gives the Convention force through the French publication decree for the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980. The Convention’s purpose includes the phrase assurer le retour immédiat des enfants déplacés ou retenus illicitement, meaning to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed or retained. “Immediate” does not mean that every case ends in a few days. It means that the procedure is designed to resolve the return question quickly, without turning the return hearing into a full custody trial.

Custody rights are broader than a document labelled “sole custody”. Under the Convention, they include the right to care for the child and, in particular, to decide where the child lives. They may arise under the law of the child’s habitual residence, from a court or administrative decision, or from an agreement having legal effect. A parent may therefore have a strong Convention case even if the parents shared care in practice and no final English order had yet been made. Conversely, a parent who had no custody right, or who had stopped exercising it, may face difficulty proving wrongful removal.

The French Supreme Court has applied these principles in an England-related case. In Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 14 November 2006, appeal no. 05-15.692, children who had been living in England were brought to France by their father. The court treated the move as wrongful because it interfered with a custody arrangement that had been accepted by the parents. The decision is useful for a British applicant because it shows that the analysis is not reduced to the existence of a recently issued order. The actual family arrangement, the children’s settled life and the rights exercised before the move can matter.

Another important distinction is between a Hague return application and a French application about the child’s future. A parent may argue that France would offer better schooling, housing or support, or that the relationship has broken down. Those points may be relevant in later parental-responsibility proceedings, but they do not automatically authorise a unilateral change of country. The Hague process is intended to discourage a parent from creating a new forum by crossing a border and then asking that forum to decide the whole family dispute.

Brexit does not turn a British child-abduction case into an ordinary immigration case. The 1980 Convention remains the principal return instrument between the UK jurisdictions and France. The post-Brexit change is that the automatic European machinery that previously supplemented Hague cases cannot simply be assumed to apply to a new UK-France dispute. The UK Government guidance on family-law disputes involving the EU explains that the Hague Convention supplies the summary return route, while other recognition and parental-responsibility questions may rely on different instruments and domestic rules.

That is why a British parent should describe the problem precisely. “My former partner has taken my child to France” is an important emergency report, but the legal application should identify: the child’s habitual residence immediately before travel; the custody right that was breached; the date of removal or the date on which retention became wrongful; the French location or likely location; and the remedy sought. A parent who presents the case as a general dispute about which home is preferable may obscure the legal test that gives the return application its priority.

B. What should you do first, and which court or authority acts?

Act immediately, even if you do not yet have every document. If the child is still in the UK and departure is imminent, contact the police and a family lawyer about urgent protective steps. In England and Wales, a prohibited steps order, a Child Arrangements Order or, in an appropriate case, wardship may be relevant. The GOV.UK guidance on taking a child abroad states: “You must get the permission of everyone with parental responsibility for a child or from a court before taking the child abroad.” It also explains that taking a child abroad without permission is child abduction. A police port alert can be considered where the risk is real and imminent, but it is not a substitute for a court order or a Hague application.

If the child has already arrived in France, contact the relevant UK Central Authority without waiting for the other parent to agree. England and Wales cases are handled through the International Child Abduction and Contact Unit, commonly called ICACU. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own Central Authority routes. The official UK international parental child-abduction guidance says that the Convention can help return a child under 16 to the country where the child usually lives and states: “if you live in the UK, contact the UK Central Authority.” The age limit is important. A child who has reached 16 is generally outside the Convention’s scope, so obtain advice urgently if the child is approaching that age.

The Central Authority route can assist with transmission, co-operation and locating information, but it does not remove the need for a well-prepared legal case. You may also need a French lawyer to present the return application and deal with the French court, prosecutor, translation and service requirements. If the child’s location is unknown, report the abduction to the police and provide passport details, photographs, addresses, school information, family contacts and travel evidence. The UK guidance expressly recommends collecting the child’s name, age, date of birth, passport details, nationalities, details of the other parent, the date of departure, the destination, the legal relationship between the adults and relevant court orders.

On the French side, the Ministry of Justice acts through its Department of Civil and Commercial International Assistance and Private International Law, known by the French initials DEDIPE, as the Central Authority. The official Justice.fr information page on international child abduction and cross-border contact identifies the French Central Authority route and explains the return process. The relevant authority should be used for a request under the Convention; an informal email to a local prefecture is not the same thing as a return application.

French procedural law then sets out a specific chain of action. Under Articles 1210-4 to 1210-12 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, the Central Authority transmits a return request to the territorially competent public prosecutor, called the procureur de la République. The text says L’autorité centrale désignée … transmet au procureur de la République … la demande de retour. The prosecutor can take steps to locate the child, seek a voluntary return, investigate, request provisional measures and introduce court proceedings.

The return action is brought before the juge aux affaires familiales, or JAF, which means the French family court judge, sitting within the territorially competent tribunal judiciaire, the civil court. Article 1210-5 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that actions based on international instruments concerning wrongful international movement of children are brought before the JAF of the competent tribunal judiciaire. Article 1210-6 provides that a Hague return request is handled under the accelerated procedure on the merits, known in French as the procédure accélérée au fond: La demande aux fins d’obtenir le retour de l’enfant … est formée, instruite et jugée selon la procédure accélérée au fond.

The court’s territorial competence is normally connected with where the child is found in France, under the special designation of tribunals for these matters. Do not choose a court merely because it is close to the British parent or because the parents previously litigated there. Give the Central Authority and your lawyer the child’s actual address, likely address and any evidence of movement between addresses. An incorrect location can create delay precisely when the Convention is meant to provide an expeditious remedy.

The objective of speed has two dimensions. Article 11 of the Convention expects the authorities to use the most expeditious procedures available, and French law supplies an accelerated procedural route. In England and Wales, the official UK Government guidance for legal professionals on family-law disputes involving the EU describes the Hague Convention as a summary return route, while the Family Procedure Rules and Practice Direction 12F govern the High Court application. The six-week period associated with Hague return proceedings is a procedural objective, not a promise that every dispute will be decided within six calendar weeks. Missing information, appeals, service problems, safeguarding evidence and questions about the child’s location can affect the timetable. Early, complete evidence is the best way to protect the objective.

Do not make private recovery attempts in France. Do not take the child from school, conceal the child or threaten the other parent. Such conduct may create criminal, safeguarding and credibility problems and can make a safe return harder to arrange. Use the police, Central Authorities and the courts. The fact that the other parent may have acted unlawfully does not give either adult permission to create a second unilateral removal.

II. How should the return application be proved and defended in France?

A. Which evidence, safeguards and urgent measures matter?

A strong file should allow a French judge to answer the Convention questions without reconstructing the family’s history from scattered messages. Begin with a dated chronology. Put the ordinary residence in the UK first, the relationship breakdown or holiday arrangement next, then the permission or refusal, the travel date, the date the child was due back, every attempt to obtain return, and the child’s present or suspected location. Keep the chronology factual. A parent’s understandable anger should not hide the exact moment when consent ended or retention became wrongful.

First prove identity and age. Include a clear copy of the child’s birth certificate, passport information, nationalities, date of birth and current photograph. If the child has a different surname from one parent, add the marriage certificate, civil-partnership evidence, change-of-name document or other record that explains the relationship. An English or Welsh applicant should provide relevant parental-responsibility material. For Scotland or Northern Ireland, provide the equivalent documents from the applicable jurisdiction. Explain what each order actually says; do not assume that a French judge will interpret an English order without translation.

Second prove habitual residence. Useful material can include school or nursery confirmation, attendance records, a GP or dentist registration, council-tax or utility evidence, a tenancy or ownership document, childcare arrangements, clubs, religious or community activities, travel history and correspondence showing that the child’s everyday life was based in the UK. The evidence should cover the period immediately before the move. A child who spent a long summer in France did not necessarily become habitually resident there. Equally, a child who had already moved the centre of life to France may not support a simple UK-to-France return case. The court will examine the reality rather than rely on a parent’s label.

Third prove custody rights and their exercise. Supply court orders, agreed parenting plans, written arrangements, school and medical decision records, and evidence of actual care. If the parents had agreed that the child would spend a defined holiday in France, show the messages fixing the return date and the travel booking. If consent was limited, preserve the limiting words. “The child can visit France in July” is not the same as “the child may move to France indefinitely”. If the other parent says there was consent to relocation, the court will need to see the original messages, not a later summary.

Fourth prove wrongful removal or retention. Gather flight, ferry or train bookings, border and passport information where available, location data obtained lawfully, messages, photographs, school communications, delivery records, witness statements and any admission of travel. Record every demand for return and every answer. If a parent promised to return on a certain date and then stopped responding, preserve the promise and the non-response. If the parent said the child would remain in France until a French court decided the matter, identify that message and the date. A return application is often won or lost on chronology and precision rather than on the volume of documents.

Consent and acquiescence require particular care. Consent is permission given before the move; acquiescence is conduct after the move that may show acceptance of the new situation. A short-lived attempt to negotiate, a message offering a practical travel solution or a parent’s effort to avoid frightening the child does not necessarily mean that the parent abandoned the return request. In Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 16 July 1992, appeal no. 91-18.117, the court stated that implied acquiescence must be certain. The decision describes the need for an act showing, unequivocally and with certainty, an intention to renounce return. This is why every communication should be preserved and explained in context.

Documents drafted in English will usually need an accurate French translation for the French proceedings. Ask the French lawyer or Central Authority which documents need certification, authentication or an apostille in the particular court file. Do not translate a court order informally if the judge needs an authenticated version. Keep the original English document, the French translation and a short English explanation of its practical effect. Inconsistent dates, names or translations can generate a procedural objection and distract from the return issue.

The file should also address safety. If the parent in France alleges domestic abuse, a risk of self-harm, a risk from the other parent, a serious medical issue or an intolerable return environment, do not dismiss the allegation as a tactic. Gather police records, protective orders, medical evidence, social-work records and credible witness evidence. At the same time, distinguish a specific, evidenced risk from a general claim that returning to the UK would be stressful. The French judge may consider protective arrangements in the state of habitual residence, but the evidence must explain why those arrangements would or would not neutralise the risk.

Urgent French safeguards can be requested while the return process is being organised. Article 373-2-6 of the French Civil Code allows the family judge to take measures securing continuity and effective relationships with each parent and to order an interdiction de sortie du territoire, or IST, which is a prohibition on taking the child out of France without both parents’ authorisation. The provision states Il peut notamment ordonner l’interdiction de sortie de l’enfant du territoire français sans l’autorisation des deux parents. Read the current Légifrance text of Article 373-2-6 with the lawyer, especially if there is a risk that the child will be moved again.

A criminal report may also be appropriate, depending on the facts. Article 227-5 of the French Criminal Code concerns wrongful failure to hand over a minor to the person entitled to claim the child; the official Légifrance section covering Articles 227-5 to 227-11 should be checked for the current wording and applicable offence. A criminal complaint is not a replacement for a Hague return application. It may affect the other parent’s position, but criminal proceedings can also complicate communication and practical return arrangements. Coordinate any complaint with the family-law strategy and do not make an accusation that the evidence cannot support.

If the child is likely to leave France, tell the lawyer and prosecutor immediately. Article 1210-5 allows a request for an order prohibiting departure from France without both parents’ authorisation when the JAF is dealing with a return request. If the child is in danger, ask about protective measures rather than attempting to intervene personally. The prosecutor can investigate, seek location information and work on voluntary delivery or execution under the French Code of Civil Procedure.

Finally, avoid using an existing UK Child Arrangements Order as though it were already a French return order. The order is powerful evidence of parental responsibility, residence or contact, but post-Brexit recognition and enforcement in France may involve separate rules. A focused explanation of that distinct issue appears in this guide to enforcing a UK child-arrangements order in France after Brexit. The firm’s broader guide to the 1980 Hague return procedure provides the pillar reference for the wider international-abduction cluster. The present return application should remain focused on the UK-France facts, the 1980 Convention and the child’s habitual residence.

B. What exceptions can prevent return, and what happens after judgment?

The Hague Convention starts from return, but it contains limited exceptions. The French court must examine the facts rather than order return mechanically. The most common arguments concern consent or acquiescence, lack of actual custody rights, a serious risk of physical or psychological harm or an intolerable situation, the child’s objection, settlement after more than one year, and the Convention’s public-policy safeguard. Each argument has its own evidence and should not be mixed with a general request for a French custody decision.

Under Article 13(1)(b), return may be refused if there is a grave risk that return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. The threshold is deliberately high. A judge can consider domestic abuse, threats, coercive control, serious mental-health risk, a concrete inability to protect the child or a situation in which the return would produce a real and serious danger. The evidence should be specific: dates, reports, medical findings, protective-order history, messages, witnesses, risk assessments and information about support available in the UK.

French case law shows both the seriousness of the exception and the need for proof. In Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 12 July 1994, appeal no. 93-15.495, the court upheld a refusal to return a very young child where the evidence showed that separation from the mother “serait vécue comme un deuil par l’enfant”. The same decision explains that the relevant danger can arise from the new conditions of life or from the conditions in the state of habitual residence. This is not a general best-interests appeal; it is a fact-specific risk analysis under Article 13.

In contrast, Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 16 February 2022, appeal no. 21-21.079 restated that the exception requires a grave danger or an intolerable situation and concerned a return to the United Kingdom. The official decision records the formulation il ne peut être fait exception au retour immédiat de l’enfant que s’il existe un risque de danger grave ou de création d’une situation intolérable. The practical lesson is that a parent defending against return should provide admissible, concrete evidence and a workable protective plan; a parent seeking return should answer the alleged risk directly rather than treating it as irrelevant.

The risk analysis is not limited to the child’s direct physical safety. It can include psychological harm, the effect of separating a very young child from a primary carer, or the risk created by the legal and practical position of the accompanying parent in the state of habitual residence. Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 22 November 2018, appeal no. 18-20.546 illustrates that a court must actually examine a properly raised psychological-risk argument. The decision censured reasoning that treated the removing parent’s responsibility for the wrongful retention as automatically defeating the Article 13(b) risk. Responsibility for the move matters, but it does not allow a court to skip a real risk assessment.

The child’s objection is a separate exception. The court may take the child’s views into account where the child has reached an age and maturity at which it is appropriate to do so. The child does not choose the country simply by expressing a preference, and the judge must consider whether the view is independent, informed and connected with the circumstances. In the England-related 2006 decision, appeal no. 05-15.692, the Supreme Court discussed an alleged objection but upheld return because the evidence of danger and mistreatment was not sufficiently established. A parent should never coach the child or ask the child to collect evidence; that can damage both the child and the case.

If the application is made more than one year after wrongful removal or retention, the other parent may argue that the child is now settled in France. Delay is therefore dangerous. The court can examine the child’s integration, home, school and social life, but “settled” is not a simple automatic defence. Delay may also be explained by concealment, lack of reliable information, unsuccessful Central Authority tracing or a genuine safety problem. Keep proof of every step taken to locate the child and obtain return. A parent who knows the address but waits without a strategy may face a more difficult factual argument than a parent who acted as soon as the location was confirmed.

Article 13(1)(a) also concerns whether the applicant was actually exercising custody rights or had consented to, or subsequently acquiesced in, the move. A parent who had no contact for a long period should explain why, for example because contact was obstructed, the child was very young or an order was being followed. A parent who agreed to a temporary stay should show the agreed duration. As the 1992 French Supreme Court decision demonstrates, an alleged implied acquiescence should not be inferred from a provisional attempt to negotiate unless the conduct clearly shows a final renunciation of return.

The Convention’s Article 20 safeguard is exceptional and relates to fundamental principles concerning human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is not a general invitation to compare the French and British systems. Similarly, the court should not use a return hearing to decide which parent is morally preferable, which country has the better school system or whether the parents’ relationship should end. The return decision normally does not determine the substance of custody. Article 19 of the Convention preserves that separation between the return issue and the merits of custody.

Do not assume that the 1996 Hague Convention on child protection replaces the 1980 return Convention. The 1996 instrument may be relevant to parental responsibility, protective measures and recognition, but the appropriate legal route depends on the relief sought. In Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 10 July 2024, appeal no. 23-22.272, the court held that the parent could not rely on the 1996 Convention as the legal basis for obtaining the return sought in that case. The case is a warning to plead the correct instrument and to distinguish return from long-term protection or recognition.

Procedure matters as much as substantive evidence. In Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 20 April 2022, appeal no. 21-24.712, the court set aside a return decision because the public prosecutor, who was a principal party, had not been shown to have attended the hearing. The official text states: Le ministère public est tenu d’assister à l’audience lorsqu’il est partie principale. This case concerned a return to Ukraine, not the UK, but it illustrates why counsel must verify the French procedural record. A return case can be substantively strong and still face an avoidable procedural issue if service, party status, translations or the prosecutor’s role are not checked.

Recent authority also underlines access to the court and the central role of the prosecutor. Cour de cassation, Second Civil Chamber, 23 May 2024, appeal no. 22-11.175 dealt with the consequences of procedural formalities in Hague proceedings and referred to the disproportionate burden that can arise when the prosecutor has a central role. Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 12 June 2024, appeal no. 23-21.540 likewise records the requirement that the public prosecutor attend when acting as a principal party. These decisions do not justify ignoring formalities; they justify checking them early.

If the French judge orders return and the other parent complies, plan the practical handover before the date arrives. Identify the receiving parent, travel documents, travel arrangements, medical needs, school timing and a safe method of communication. If there is no voluntary compliance, the prosecutor responsible for execution is connected with the specially designated tribunal in whose area the child is located. Articles 1210-7 to 1210-9 of the Code of Civil Procedure allow the prosecutor to organise execution, investigate the child’s situation and, where necessary, seek the assistance of the public force. An order is not an invitation for a parent to use force personally; execution must be coordinated through the competent authorities.

If return is refused, act quickly on appeal and on the parallel custody and protection strategy. A refusal in a Convention proceeding does not necessarily give the French parent a final residence order. The UK court may retain or regain jurisdiction over long-term arrangements, while France may need to deal with protective measures or the child’s immediate welfare. Obtain advice on recognition of existing orders, the 1996 Hague Convention, contact arrangements and any appeal deadline. Keep the child safe and maintain lawful, documented contact wherever the court permits it.

For a British parent, the most useful final check is practical. Can the file answer where the child lived, what right was breached, when the breach occurred, where the child is now, what was agreed, what evidence proves each point, and whether any genuine Article 13 risk needs a protective answer? If yes, send the file through the correct Central Authority route, instruct French counsel where necessary and ask for urgent procedural measures. If not, identify the missing evidence before the hearing rather than relying on a general statement that the child belongs in Britain.

Conclusion

A child taken from the UK to France after Brexit may still be the subject of a Hague return application. The core test is wrongful removal or retention from the child’s habitual residence, not a final decision about which parent should win the wider family dispute. The UK Central Authority, the French Central Authority, the French public prosecutor and the JAF each have a defined role. The evidence should be chronological, translated where required and directed to habitual residence, custody rights, consent, location, timing and any specific safety risk.

Start with the authorities and urgent protective advice, preserve every message and document, and do not attempt private recovery. A return application should be prepared as a focused international family-law case, while any later residence, contact, recognition or protective proceedings are handled on their own legal footing. Speed, accurate procedure and credible evidence give the court the best chance of protecting the child and restoring the dispute to the forum legally responsible for deciding the child’s long-term future.

Need a quick opinion on your case?

Our firm offers a telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer from the firm.

You can receive an initial legal orientation by telephone within 48 hours with a lawyer from the firm.

Call +33 6 46 60 58 22 to discuss your situation.

You can also use our contact form to send the essential dates and documents.