You are British, you live in France with your children, and homesickness, a new job or a separation has made the decision for you: you want to take the children back to the United Kingdom. Since Brexit, that one-way Eurotunnel booking is no longer a simple family move inside the European Union. If the other parent stays in France and shares parental authority with you, leaving without their written agreement or without an order from the French family court can be treated as an international child abduction, with a fast-track return case, a criminal file and the loss of the residence arrangement you hoped to protect. This guide explains, for a British parent living in France, the exact steps that make a return to Britain lawful: the prior notice you owe the other parent, the written permission to obtain, the application to the juge aux affaires familiales (the family court judge, universally called the JAF) when you disagree, what the British authorities will ask on arrival, and what happens if a move has already taken place without agreement. It covers the Hague return proceedings before the French courts, the only defences judges accept, and how to challenge a refusal or a return order without turning a family dispute into a criminal conviction.
I. Before You Leave France With the Children: Permission, Notice and the French Family Judge
A. Tell the Other Parent First, Get Written Permission or Ask the Family Judge to Decide
French law starts from a principle that surprises many British parents: separation changes nothing about who holds parental authority. Article 373-2 of the Civil Code states that parental separation has no effect on the rules of parental authority, and it adds the sentence that governs every planned move: “Tout changement de résidence de l’un des parents, dès lors qu’il modifie les modalités d’exercice de l’autorité parentale, doit faire l’objet d’une information préalable et en temps utile de l’autre parent. En cas de désaccord, le parent le plus diligent saisit le juge aux affaires familiales qui statue selon ce qu’exige l’intérêt de l’enfant.” A move from Lyon to London, or from Bordeaux to Birmingham, plainly changes how contact works, so it triggers this duty. The official guidance on service-public.fr says the same thing in practical terms: you must inform the other parent beforehand whenever the move affects the exercise of parental authority, for example because a distant relocation makes their visiting and staying rights impossible, and in case of disagreement you may use family mediation or apply to the JAF (service-public.fr: can a separated parent move freely).
What counts as proper notice? The statute asks for information that is both prior and timely: early enough for the other parent to respond, to propose an alternative school-holiday pattern, or to apply to the court themselves. In practice, a recorded-delivery letter (lettre recommandée avec accusé de réception, the signed-for letter lawyers expect) sent several weeks before the planned departure, setting out the moving date, the new address, the proposed school, the travel arrangements and a concrete revised contact calendar, is the minimum. Keep the proof of sending and receipt. An oral remark over the telephone or a message buried in an argument about something else will not convince a judge that you gave prior notice, and silence from the other parent is not consent: you need an explicit written agreement, ideally signed by both parents, recording permission to relocate the children’s habitual residence to the United Kingdom, the new contact schedule and who pays for travel. The JAF can later redistribute travel costs and adjust maintenance, because article 373-2 says the judge reallocates travelling expenses and adjusts the contribution to the child’s upkeep and education accordingly, so put a costs proposal in your letter rather than leaving the point open.
If the other parent refuses or simply does not answer, do not treat the refusal as the end of the story, and do not leave anyway. The parent who acts first seizes the JAF, using the standard application form for parental authority, visiting rights and maintenance (service-public.fr: application to the family judge). Ask the court to authorise the relocation, to fix the children’s residence with you in the United Kingdom, and to set the other parent’s visiting rights, holiday periods and video contact. File before the school term you are targeting, because courts decide slowly except in emergencies, and a judge faced with children already settled in an English school for six months reasons differently from a judge asked to authorise a planned move. Attach everything that shows a genuine, prepared project rather than an escape: the English school offer or council application, the tenancy agreement or purchase details, the employment contract, the childcare plan, the budget for return flights for contact, and evidence that the children will keep a real relationship with the parent who stays, such as proposed monthly long weekends and half the school holidays in France.
The judge decides only by the child’s best interests, and article 373-2-11 of the Civil Code lists what must be weighed: the previous practice of the parents and any agreements made, the feelings expressed by the minor under article 388-1, each parent’s ability to perform their duties and respect the other’s rights, expert reports taking account of the child’s age, social enquiry reports, and any physical or psychological pressure or violence by one parent against the other. Two of these criteria deserve your full attention. First, your own conduct: a parent who has blocked contact, denigrated the other parent or moved twice without warning scores badly on the third criterion, while a parent who facilitated every holiday and paid for flights scores well. Second, the child’s voice: article 388-1 provides that a minor capable of discernment may be heard by the judge, that the hearing is a right whenever the child requests it, and that the child may be heard alone, with a lawyer or with a person of their choice. Do not coach the children and do not bring them to the hearing unannounced; instead, mention in your application that you agree to the children being heard, which signals confidence rather than fear. Where relations are merely tense rather than violent, propose mediation alongside the court case: judges notice who tried to agree.
Two protective tools exist while the case is pending, and you should know both whether you are leaving or staying. The JAF can prohibit the children from leaving French territory without both parents’ authorisation, a measure entered on the wanted-persons file by the public prosecutor: article 373-2-6 allows the family judge to order a ban on the child leaving France without both parents’ permission, entered on the wanted-persons file. This judicial ban, the interdiction de sortie du territoire (IST), lasts for the period fixed in the judgment, or until a new decision or the child’s majority if none is fixed (service-public.fr: parental conflict over a child’s departure). In a genuine emergency, where abduction looks imminent, either parent can instead seek an administrative objection to departure, the opposition à la sortie du territoire (OST), from the préfecture or sous-préfecture, or from a police station at night or weekends; it lasts fifteen days maximum and cannot be extended, so it only buys time to seize the JAF. If your former partner obtains either measure against you, that is precisely the moment to instruct a lawyer rather than to test the border: attempting to travel with an IST in force adds a deliberate-disobedience colour to everything that follows.
B. What the British Authorities and an English Court Will Ask When the Children Arrive
A French authorisation is only half the journey. The United Kingdom applies its own mirror rule, and British border officers, schools and GPs surgeries will apply it. The official guidance states the position bluntly: you must get the permission of everyone with parental responsibility for a child or from a court before taking the child abroad, and taking a child abroad without permission is child abduction. Everyone with parental responsibility (the English equivalent of parental authority: mothers hold it automatically, fathers broadly if married to the mother or named on the birth certificate under the current rules) must consent. A letter from the person with parental responsibility is usually enough evidence of permission, and if permission is refused you must apply to a court, giving departure dates, return arrangements and the contact details of those with parental responsibility remaining in the United Kingdom. There is one narrow statutory exception worth knowing: you can take a child abroad for 28 days without getting permission if a child arrangements order says the child must live with you, unless a court order says you cannot. That covers a long holiday, not a permanent relocation to Manchester or Glasgow, so for the move this guide describes, a lives-with order alone does not replace the other parent’s consent or a court order.
Prepare the arrival file as carefully as the departure file. Carry the French judgment authorising the move or the signed parental agreement, with a sworn translation, plus the children’s birth certificates and any English court order you hold. English schools and local councils commonly ask for proof that the person registering the child is entitled to do so, and a receiving parent who can show a French court order faces no such difficulty. Consider also the recognition position: since Brexit, the European parental-responsibility regulation no longer binds the United Kingdom, so a French custody decision is recognised in England under the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention, to which both France and the United Kingdom are contracting states, rather than by automatic European circulation. In practice English courts do recognise French measures concerning habitual residents of France, but allow time and translations, and if you anticipate litigation in England, ask your French lawyer to arrange an Article 30-type certificate or at least a certified copy with translation. Readers dealing with the reverse English litigation should also read our analysis of parallel divorce cases between England and France (British spouse filed for divorce in England while you live in France), which explains how English and French courts allocate jurisdiction when both countries are seised.
One strategic point links the two sides of the Channel. The country of the children’s habitual residence decides which court is competent to regulate custody, and moving the children does not instantly move that competence. The Court of Cassation recalled the mechanism under the 1996 Convention in a 2020 ruling: “qu’en vertu de l’article 5 de la Convention de La Haye du 19 octobre 1996, sont compétentes pour prendre des mesures tendant à la protection de sa personne ou de ses biens les autorités judiciaires de l’État contractant de la résidence habituelle de l’enfant et, en cas de changement de résidence habituelle, celles de la nouvelle résidence habituelle” (Cass., 1st Civil Chamber, 30 September 2020, No. 19-14.761). A lawful, agreed relocation followed by genuine settlement shifts habitual residence to England over time, and the English courts then become competent; a unilateral removal does not, and the French courts keep the case while a return application runs. That is why the lawful route, slow as it feels, is also the strategically stronger one: it moves both the family and the jurisdiction.
II. After a Move Without Agreement: the Hague Return Case, the Defences and the Criminal Risk
A. The Return Application in France and the Only Defences That Ever Succeed
When a parent considers that the children have been wrongfully taken from England to France, or from France to England and then recovered to France, the remedy is not an ordinary custody trial but a specialised return case under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The left-behind parent contacts their national central authority, the French central authority at the Ministry of Justice transmits the file to the territorially competent public prosecutor, and the prosecutor applies to the JAF for the child’s immediate return. The Court of Cassation confirmed the prosecutor’s exact role in February 2022: “le procureur de la République, saisi en application de l’article 1210-4 du code de procédure civile et tenu de faire exécuter la demande de retour émanant d’un Etat étranger sur le fondement des dispositions de la Convention de La Haye du 25 octobre 1980, a, lorsqu’il introduit une procédure judiciaire afin d’obtenir le retour de l’enfant, la qualité de partie principale et ne saurait représenter les intérêts de l’un des parents” (Cass., 1st Civil Chamber, 16 February 2022, No. 21-19.061; article 1210-4 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Understand what that means for you: the prosecutor is not your opponent’s lawyer and not yours either, but a party whose task is to secure the Convention’s execution, and the return judge does not award custody, apportion blame for the separation or compare French and English schools. The single question is whether the removal or retention was wrongful and, if so, whether an exception blocks return.
Wrongfulness turns on custody rights in the country of habitual residence immediately before the move. In June 2025 the Court of Cassation restated the test while ordering a small child’s return to Austria: “Selon l’article 3 b) de la Convention de La Haye du 25 octobre 1980 sur les aspects civils de l’enlèvement international d’enfants, le déplacement ou le non-retour d’un enfant est considéré comme illicite lorsqu’il a eu lieu en violation d’un droit de garde, attribué par le droit de l’Etat dans lequel l’enfant avait sa résidence habituelle immédiatement avant son déplacement ou son non-retour” (Cass., 1st Civil Chamber, 12 June 2025, No. 24-17.787). The same ruling recalls that “Selon l’article 5 a) de la même Convention, le droit de garde, au sens de ce texte, comprend le droit portant sur les soins de la personne de l’enfant et, en particulier, celui de décider de son lieu de résidence.” For a British family in France, the consequence is direct: where both parents jointly exercise autorité parentale under French law, each holds a right to decide the place of residence, and either parent who moves the children to England without the other’s consent breaches a custody right and commits a wrongful removal, even if no court ever fixed the children’s residence. Defences built on “the children are British”, “they were born in London” or “English law would give them to me” fail at this stage, because the Convention looks at habitual residence and at custody rights under that country’s law, not at nationality or at who would win a custody trial. The 2025 ruling even traces joint custody through the 1996 Convention’s conflict rules where no court order exists, citing article 16: custody arising by operation of law is governed by the law of the habitual residence and survives a change of residence, which closes the argument that a quick Channel crossing wipes the slate clean.
Once wrongfulness is established, return is the rule and refusal the narrow exception. The Convention’s defences are few: the left-behind parent consented or acquiesced, more than a year passed with the child settled, return would expose the child to grave risk or an intolerable situation, the mature child objects, or return would breach fundamental human-rights principles. French courts construe them strictly, and the burden of proof lies on the parent opposing return. The grave-risk defence, article 13(b), is the most invoked and the most often rejected, because its wording sets a high bar that the Court of Cassation repeats verbatim: “selon l’article 13, point b), de la Convention de La Haye du 25 octobre 1980 sur les aspects civils de l’enlèvement international d’enfants, l’autorité judiciaire ou administrative de l’Etat requis n’est pas tenue d’ordonner le retour de l’enfant, lorsque la personne, l’institution ou l’organisme qui s’oppose à son retour établit qu’il existe un risque grave que le retour de l’enfant ne l’expose à un danger physique ou psychique, ou de toute autre manière ne le place dans une situation intolérable” (Cass., 1st Civil Chamber, 14 October 2021, No. 21-15.811). General claims about English housing costs, a new partner’s limited flat or the disruption of changing schools do not meet this test. What can meet it is documented domestic violence with concrete consequences for the children, the absence of any protective arrangement on return, or medical evidence that a seriously ill child cannot travel safely. Note the follow-on ruling in that same case: a court may refuse return for grave risk only after checking that no adequate protective arrangements exist on return, examining the violent parent’s actual living conditions and current supervision, and it is not obliged to consult the foreign central authority about hypothetical measures. So if you oppose return on safety grounds, file the protective evidence early: police reports, medical certificates, social-services records, and precise proof that no safe arrangement, such as a non-molestation order, separate accommodation or supervised handover, would neutralise the risk.
The child’s objection is the second defence British parents ask about, and it is equally narrow. The objection must come from the child, be clearly expressed to the judge hearing the child, show a sufficient degree of maturity, and amount to more than a preference for one parent’s larger garden or shorter school run. Judges hear children under article 388-1, weigh age and maturity, and disregard views that plainly repeat a parent’s script. Promising a teenager that England means no homework and unlimited gaming, then presenting them as objecting to France, is a tactic judges have seen many times. Finally, remember the calendar: within a year of the wrongful move, return is in principle immediate; after a year, the settled-child argument opens, but courts examine settlement rigorously, including schooling, language, friendships and stability, rather than counting months. Whatever your position, act within weeks, not terms: delay weakens a return applicant and hardens every other issue.
B. Challenging a Refusal or a Return Order, Surviving the Criminal Case and the Paris Practicalities
A return decision is never the last word while an appeal remains, but appeals run on rails and you must board the right one. Against a JAF return order, the left-behind or removing parent appeals to the cour d’appel (the appeal court), which re-examines the Convention conditions; against the appeal court’s ruling, the only remaining remedy is an appeal to the Court of Cassation, which checks the law, not the facts, and does not suspend enforcement by itself. If you seek return and the JAF refuses it, challenge the refusal on its legal ground: attack a wrong habitual-residence finding with school, medical and lease evidence showing where the children’s life truly centred; attack a grave-risk finding by demonstrating concrete protective arrangements in the receiving country, such as undertakings to the English court, separate accommodation and supervised handovers; and attack a child’s-objection finding by questioning maturity, spontaneity and the hearing conditions. If return was ordered against you, the realistic appellate arguments are the mirror image: prove consent or acquiescence with messages and emails in which the other parent accepted the move, prove settlement after a year with report cards and club memberships rather than assertions, or prove grave risk with fresh medical or social-services evidence tied to the moment of return. In both directions, obtain the full written reasoning quickly, because cassation deadlines are short and a return order can be enforced while the appeal runs unless a stay is granted, so ask your lawyer on day one whether to seek suspension of enforcement alongside the appeal itself.
Running beside the civil return case, and often used as pressure, is the criminal file. French criminal law punishes three behaviours in this area, and each carries a distinct sentence that your strategy must respect. Refusing without lawful reason to hand a minor child to the person entitled to claim them is punishable by one year’s imprisonment and a 15,000 euro fine: “Le fait de refuser indûment de représenter un enfant mineur à la personne qui a le droit de le réclamer est puni d’un an d’emprisonnement et de 15 000 euros d’amende” (article 227-5 of the Criminal Code). A parent or grandparent who takes the child away from those exercising parental authority, or from the child’s habitual home, faces the same one year and 15,000 euros: “Le fait, par tout ascendant, de soustraire un enfant mineur des mains de ceux qui exercent l’autorité parentale ou auxquels il a été confié ou chez qui il a sa résidence habituelle, est puni d’un an d’emprisonnement et de 15 000 euros d’amende” (article 227-7). Both offences become dramatically heavier when the child is kept for more than five days without the entitled persons knowing where they are, or is wrongfully kept outside France: three years’ imprisonment and a 45,000 euro fine where the minor is retained beyond five days with their whereabouts unknown, or is wrongfully retained outside the territory of the Republic (article 227-9). A quiet Channel crossing that turns into a hidden half-term in Yorkshire is exactly the fact pattern this aggravation targets. Added to these, the apparently minor offence of moving house without telling the other parent carries six months’ imprisonment and a 7,500 euro fine where children live with you and visiting rights exist under a judgment or approved agreement: the parent who moves without notifying the change of domicile within one month to those holding visiting or staying rights commits the article 227-6 offence. Service-public.fr confirms the one-month notification rule and the six-month, 7,500 euro penalty in its moving-with-children guidance.
None of this means every disputed move ends in a cell, and several lines of defence exist against the criminal complaint that almost always accompanies a return application. First, the offences require intention and the absence of lawful reason: compliance with a court order, a genuine and documented belief in the other parent’s written consent, or an immediate danger justifying temporary protection are argued before the criminal court, not in the press. Second, negotiate the civil outcome to defuse the criminal one: prosecutors and judges look differently at a parent who returns the children under an agreed schedule with compensatory holidays compared with one who hides them. Third, challenge the complaint’s factual basis precisely: visiting rights that were never fixed by any judgment or approved agreement, notice that was properly given, or children handed over late by hours rather than retained, each change the legal characterisation. Never ignore a summons or a convocation from the police or the prosecutor, never coach the children to lie about where they were, and never destroy messages: obstruction evidence converts a manageable file into a severe one. Your criminal lawyer and your family lawyer must coordinate, because an admission made to speed the family case can become an exhibit in the criminal one.
For families in Paris and the Île-de-France, three local points matter. Jurisdiction follows the children’s habitual residence, so a family living in the 15th arrondissement applies to the Paris judicial court (tribunal judiciaire de Paris), whose JAF sits at the Batignolles courthouse, while families in Boulogne, Saint-Denis, Créteil or Évry go to Nanterre, Bobigny, Créteil or Évry-Courcouronnes, with appeals to the Paris or Versailles appeal courts. Return applications pass through the Paris prosecutor’s minors unit, which handles Hague files daily and moves fast, so expect short summons times and prepare translations in advance rather than asking for adjournments. Finally, border reality: with an IST or OST in force, controls at Gare du Nord, Charles de Gaulle and the Channel ports can stop a departure on the spot, and an attempted boarding recorded by the border police becomes the opening exhibit of the other parent’s return and criminal files. If you live in the Paris region and sense that an IST application is coming, file your own relocation or contact application first and keep the children in school: the parent who keeps life normal while litigating is believed more easily than the parent who creates emergencies.
Conclusion
Taking your children from France back to Britain after Brexit is lawful when it is prepared, and dangerous when it is improvised. Inform the other parent early in writing, seek a signed agreement covering the move, the new contact pattern and travel costs, and if agreement fails, ask the JAF to authorise the relocation before booking anything, building the file around the children’s schooling, stability and continuing bond with both parents. Check the British side in parallel: written consent from everyone with parental responsibility or an English court order, translations ready, and no reliance on the 28-day holiday exception for a permanent move. If a wrongful move has already occurred, treat the Hague return clock as running from day one: apply within weeks through the central authorities, focus the case on habitual residence and custody rights, and reserve grave-risk and objection arguments for evidence that truly meets the Convention’s high thresholds. And if a criminal complaint lands alongside the family case, answer every summons, coordinate your family and criminal defence, and trade confrontation for an agreed return calendar with compensatory time. The parents who keep written traces, respect court orders and put the children’s routine first win far more often, in both countries, than those who move first and explain later.
Need a quick opinion on your case.
You live in France and plan to take your children back to the United Kingdom, or the other parent has moved them without your agreement, and you want to know what permission to seek, which judge to seize and what to challenge. Our firm offers a telephone consultation within 48 hours with an advocate of the chambers. Call +33 6 46 60 58 22 (Maître Reda Kohen), or write via our contact page. Bring the children’s birth certificates, any French or English court orders, the school correspondence, your written exchanges with the other parent, and any summons or prosecutor’s letter you have already received.