Since 1 January 2021, British citizens have been third-country nationals in France, which means your children do not acquire any automatic right to join you simply because you hold a French residence permit and pay tax here. Whether your child is five or seventeen, whether they live in Manchester with their other parent or have already spent school holidays at your home in the Dordogne, the French administration applies the same starting question to every British sponsor: which legal route puts this child in France lawfully, and does the file prove each condition of that route? The two routes that matter for most British parents are the family reunification procedure, known in French as regroupement familial, which you apply for from France before your family travels, and the private and family life residence permit, known as the carte de séjour vie privée et familiale, which covers situations that do not fit the standard reunification mould. Each route has its own qualifying conditions, its own decision-maker, and its own appeal deadlines, and choosing the wrong one is the most common reason British files fail. This guide sets out the decision tree in practical order: who qualifies for regroupement familial and what the prefect checks first, what to do when your child falls outside that procedure, how to read a refusal and which appeal to file, and how to rebuild a file that answers the exact ground of refusal. It is a companion to our guide on bringing a spouse, and it concentrates here on children, where the rules on age, filiation, schooling and the best interests of the child add layers that spouse cases never raise. The procedure described reflects the law as it stands for decisions taken in 2026, but forms, appointment channels and document lists change, so every link to an official text below should be opened and re-checked immediately before you file.

I. How a British parent settled in France brings children to live with them after Brexit

A. Who qualifies for regroupement familial and what the prefect checks first

The first point to settle is your own status, because Brexit created two classes of British sponsor and the administration never confuses them. If you were lawfully resident in France before 31 December 2020 and hold a Withdrawal Agreement residence document, your family’s position may be governed partly by the protected provisions of that treaty, and our companion guide on Withdrawal Agreement permits explains that branch. If you arrived after 1 January 2021, or if your child was born or your relevant family link was created after that date, you fall under the ordinary French immigration code, the Code de l’entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d’asile, universally shortened to CESEDA. For children applying today in 2026, the ordinary route is the normal case: the British parent applies from France, the child waits abroad, and the child travels only once the prefect has authorised entry and the consulate has issued the visa. No British passport, no UK birth certificate and no school place in France short-circuits that sequence.

The statute opens the door in plain terms. Article L434-2 of CESEDA provides: “L’étranger qui séjourne régulièrement en France depuis au moins dix-huit mois, sous couvert d’un des titres d’une durée de validité d’au moins un an prévus par le présent code ou par des conventions internationales, peut demander à bénéficier de son droit à être rejoint, au titre du regroupement familial : 1° Par son conjoint, si ce dernier est âgé d’au moins dix-huit ans ; 2° Et par les enfants du couple mineurs de dix-huit ans.” Three elements of that sentence decide most British cases before they start. First, the eighteen-month clock runs on regular residence under a permit valid for at least one year, so a British parent on a one-year visitor card, salarié card or vie privée et familiale card starts counting from the first day of that lawful residence, while periods on a short-stay Schengen stamp or an expired receipt do not count. Second, the children covered as of right are the couple’s children under eighteen at the date of the application, which means the age is frozen when you file, not when the prefect decides months later. Third, children from a previous relationship are governed by companion provisions: Article L434-3 covers children whose filiation is established with only one parent or whose other parent has died or lost parental rights, and Article L434-4 covers children entrusted to one parent by a foreign court decision, with the other parent’s written authorisation to produce. British blended families should therefore read L434-2 together with L434-3 and L434-4 before assuming every child qualifies identically.

The second structural rule surprises many parents. Article L434-1 of CESEDA states: “Le regroupement familial est sollicité pour l’ensemble des personnes désignées aux articles L. 434-2 à L. 434-4. Un regroupement partiel peut toutefois être autorisé pour des motifs tenant à l’intérêt des enfants.” The default is the whole family together, and asking for one child now and another later needs a reasoned request built around the children’s interests, such as schooling in progress, medical treatment, or accommodation genuinely too small for everyone at once. The official Service Public guidance confirms that partial reunification is exceptional and must be requested by reasoned letter when the file is lodged, with schooling, health or housing size among the accepted motivations. File the partial request without reasons and the prefect will treat the split as unexplained rather than as a favour to the children.

Once eligibility is established, the prefect tests three cumulative conditions set by Article L434-7 of CESEDA: “1° Il justifie de ressources stables et suffisantes pour subvenir aux besoins de sa famille ; 2° Il dispose ou disposera à la date d’arrivée de sa famille en France d’un logement considéré comme normal pour une famille comparable vivant dans la même région géographique ; 3° Il se conforme aux principes essentiels qui, conformément aux lois de la République, régissent la vie familiale en France, pays d’accueil.” Each condition has a precise administrative meaning, and British files most often fail on the first two. Resources must be stable, which the administration reads as regular income over roughly the twelve months before filing, and sufficient, which means reaching a floor fixed by decree near the monthly minimum wage, the SMIC, adjusted for family size. Article L434-8 of CESEDA explains the counting: “Pour l’appréciation des ressources mentionnées au 1° de l’article L. 434-7 toutes les ressources du demandeur et de son conjoint sont prises en compte, indépendamment des prestations familiales, de l’allocation équivalent retraite et des allocations prévues à l’article L. 262-1 du code de l’action sociale et des familles, à l’article L. 815-1 du code de la sécurité sociale et aux articles L. 5423-1 et L. 5423-2 du code du travail.” In practice, wages, self-employed earnings, pensions and the working spouse’s income count, while family benefits, minimum-income allowances and similar solidarity payments do not. A British parent whose payslips show agency work with long gaps, or whose household relies heavily on benefits topped up by a small salary, should expect a resources refusal and should either wait until twelve solid months are documented or examine the statutory exemptions: holders of the disabled adult allowance are dispensed from the resources condition, and applicants over sixty-five with twenty-five years of regular residence rejoining a spouse of ten years’ marriage are treated with particular leniency, as the official guidance confirms. The recent decision of the Conseil d’État, France’s highest administrative court, of 26 June 2025 in case 496471 shows how seriously judges take this condition and its exceptions, a point developed in Part II below.

Housing is measured, not guessed. The dwelling must be normal for a comparable family in the same area and must meet health and equipment standards, with minimum floor areas that depend on the official housing zone: the Service Public pages indicate at least 22 square metres for a couple or two people in zones A bis and A, plus 10 square metres per additional person up to eight people, and 24 square metres in zones B1 and B2 on the same basis. A British family of four renting a 30 square metre studio in Lyon will therefore fail the test on paper even if everyone is willing to squeeze in, while the same family in a 55 square metre two-bedroom flat with a proper lease passes comfortably. The third condition, respect for the essential principles governing family life under the laws of the Republic, covers polygamy, female genital mutilation and similarly fundamental prohibitions; Article L434-9 of CESEDA expressly bars reunification for a second spouse where the sponsor already lives in France with a first spouse. Ordinary British families satisfy this condition without thinking about it, but the file must still contain the declaration the forms require.

The procedure itself runs through three offices in fixed order, and each step leaves a paper trail you will need on appeal. You lodge the application with the territorial delegation of the Office français de l’immigration et de l’intégration, known as OFII, the public agency that receives and completes reunification files. Article L434-10 of CESEDA then provides: “L’autorisation d’entrer en France dans le cadre de la procédure du regroupement familial est donnée par l’autorité administrative compétente après vérification des conditions de logement et de ressources par le maire de la commune de résidence de l’étranger ou le maire de la commune où il envisage de s’établir.” The mayor, meaning the elected head of the local council, checks the accommodation certificate, may visit the dwelling, and issues a reasoned opinion within two months; the same article adds that “Cet avis est réputé rendu à l’expiration d’un délai de deux mois à compter de la communication du dossier par l’autorité administrative.” OFII completes any further investigation and forwards the file to the prefect, the State’s representative in the department, who alone authorises or refuses entry. The prefect must notify the decision within six months of the complete file reaching OFII, and any refusal must be reasoned, meaning it must state the facts and the legal ground rather than invoking a formula. If the prefect has not replied after six months, the silence counts as an implicit refusal, which is itself challengeable, as the official guidance confirms. Where entry is authorised, the family receives an attestation de dépôt, a filing certificate, to send to the children abroad, who then apply for a long-stay visa at the French consulate; Article L412-1 of CESEDA recalls the general rule that “la première délivrance d’une carte de séjour temporaire ou d’une carte de séjour pluriannuelle est subordonnée à la production par l’étranger du visa de long séjour mentionné aux 1° ou 2° de l’article L. 411-1.” Children who skip the visa and enter on a passport stamp create exactly the irregular-stay problem examined in Part II.

B. When regroupement familial does not fit: partial applications, older children and vie privée et familiale

A significant minority of British children cannot use the standard procedure at all, and recognising that early saves a year of wasted effort. A nineteen-year-old at university in Leeds is over eighteen and falls outside L434-2 entirely. A fifteen-year-old whose other parent is alive, retains parental rights and refuses to authorise the move falls outside L434-4. A widowed British grandmother in Kent hoping to join her son in Bordeaux is an ascendant, and the official guidance states plainly that the reunification procedure does not apply to ascendants, who must instead look at visitor status with adequate resources. For each of these cases the file must be rebuilt under a different legal basis rather than forced into regroupement familial with fingers crossed.

The principal fallback is the admission to residence on private and family life grounds, the carte de séjour temporaire vie privée et familiale granted outside the standard categories. Article L423-23 of CESEDA provides that a foreigner outside the listed categories and outside reunification, who holds personal and family ties in France such that “le refus d’autoriser son séjour porterait à son droit au respect de sa vie privée et familiale une atteinte disproportionnée au regard des motifs du refus, se voit délivrer une carte de séjour temporaire portant la mention ” vie privée et familiale ” d’une durée d’un an, sans que soit opposable la condition prévue à l’article L. 412-1.” Two features make this provision powerful for British families. The proportionality test is individual: the judge weighs the intensity, age and stability of the ties, the applicant’s living conditions, integration into French society including knowledge of the Republic’s values, and the nature of remaining ties with the country of origin, all criteria stated in the second paragraph of the same article. And the long-stay visa condition cannot be held against the applicant, which matters enormously where a child is already in France without the correct visa. A seventeen-year-old who has lived with their British father in Toulouse for three years, attends a French lycée and speaks fluent French may therefore obtain a vie privée et familiale card even though the standard reunification route was never used, provided the file proves each of those ties with dated evidence rather than assertions.

A second special route helps where the child has a French connection of their own. Article L423-7 of CESEDA states: “L’étranger qui est père ou mère d’un enfant français mineur résidant en France et qui établit contribuer effectivement à l’entretien et à l’éducation de l’enfant dans les conditions prévues par l’article 371-2 du code civil, depuis la naissance de celui-ci ou depuis au moins deux ans, se voit délivrer une carte de séjour temporaire portant la mention ” vie privée et familiale ” d’une durée d’un an, sans que soit opposable la condition prévue à l’article L. 412-1.” The cross-referenced civil provision, Article 371-2 of the Civil Code, lays down that “Chacun des parents contribue à l’entretien et à l’éducation des enfants à proportion de ses ressources, de celles de l’autre parent, ainsi que des besoins de l’enfant.” Consider a British mother separated from a French father, living near their French child in Nantes and paying maintenance every month: she does not need regroupement familial at all, because her own parental role, proved by bank transfers, school correspondence and evidence of actual involvement, opens the L423-7 route directly, again without the visa obstacle. The lesson generalises: before launching reunification as sponsor, check whether the child or the other parent holds a French nationality, a French residence right or a protected status that founds an independent application.

Schooling deserves separate attention because it changes the moral and legal centre of gravity of a file. A child who has attended a French école, collège or lycée for several years, whose reports show continuous enrolment and progress, and whose friends, activities and medical follow-up are all in France, presents the classic proportionality picture under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the treaty guarantee of respect for private and family life. The administrative court of appeal in Lyon recalled the text of that guarantee in a 6 March 2025 judgment, case 23LY02310, citing CAA Lyon, 6 March 2025, 23LY02310: “1. Toute personne a droit au respect de sa vie privée et familiale (…) / 2. Il ne peut y avoir ingérence d’une autorité publique dans l’exercice de ce droit que pour autant que cette ingérence est prévue par la loi et qu’elle constitue une mesure qui, dans une société démocratique, est nécessaire à la sécurité nationale, à la sûreté publique, au bien-être économique du pays, à la défense de l’ordre et à la prévention des infractions pénales, à la protection de la santé ou de la morale, ou à la protection des droits et libertés d’autrui”. In that case the court ultimately rejected the applicant’s claim and upheld removal, which is precisely why British parents should read it: Article 8 is a balancing test, not a trump card, and it is won with school certificates, attendance records, medical letters, proof of language and evidence of daily care, not with general statements about loving France. Where the child remains abroad, the same evidence works prospectively through the best interests of the child, the principle stated in Article 3-1 of the New York Convention on the Rights of the Child that courts cite alongside Article 8: explain concretely why life together in France serves this child, with documents, rather than assuming any judge will take it for granted.

II. What to do when the prefect refuses your family reunification or your child is already in France without papers

A. How to read the refusal letter, which appeal to file and within which deadline

Every refusal tells you the next move if you read it properly. A lawful refusal states which condition failed and on which facts: eight months of agency payslips averaging below the floor, a studio of 24 square metres for five people, a missing authorisation from the other parent, or a threat to public order. Article L432-1 of CESEDA illustrates the standard even for the gravest ground, since a permit may be refused where presence constitutes a threat to public order only “par une décision motivée”, by a reasoned decision. An unreasoned or formulaic refusal is therefore vulnerable on its face, and a refusal that contradicts its own file, for example by ignoring six months of stable salary evidence that was plainly attached, invites annulment for error of fact or manifest error of assessment. Read the letter twice, underline the exact ground, and check it against the copies of everything you actually submitted, because appeals that answer a different ground from the one stated lose even when the family has sympathy on its side.

Time then governs everything. The official guidance describes the available challenges: an administrative appeal to the prefect who decided, known as recours gracieux, and to the Minister of the Interior, known as recours hiérarchique, plus a court action, known as recours contentieux, before the geographically competent administrative court, the tribunal administratif. The court action must normally be lodged within two months of notification of the express refusal, or within two months of the implicit refusal born of six months’ silence. The administrative appeals have no suspensive effect by themselves and do not automatically extend the court deadline unless lodged within that same two-month window, in which case they preserve it. British applicants sometimes post a polite letter to the prefect six months later and believe the file is still alive; it is not, and a fresh application with unchanged facts will simply attract a fresh refusal. Diary the dates the day the letter arrives: date of notification, two-month court deadline, and, where a child already in France has received an order to leave, the much shorter removal deadlines stated in that separate order.

Two recent court decisions show how judges police the procedure, and both should be read by any British parent preparing an appeal. In CAA Marseille, 12 July 2022, 21MA04331, a mother sought reunification for her minor daughter, the prefect refused, and the tribunal annulled the refusal because the mayor had never given a proper opinion. The court of appeal confirmed that the mayor’s prior reasoned opinion is a legal guarantee for the applicant: “Cette consultation obligatoire du maire de la commune préalablement à la décision du préfet statuant sur une demande de regroupement familial, qui a pour objet d’éclairer l’autorité administrative compétente, par un avis motivé, sur les conditions de ressources et d’hébergement de l’étranger formulant une telle demande, constitue ainsi une garantie instituée par le législateur et précisée par le pouvoir réglementaire sans qu’y fasse obstacle la circonstance qu’en l’absence d’avis explicitement formulé, cet avis est réputé favorable à l’expiration d’un délai de deux mois à compter de la communication du dossier par l’autorité administrative.” In that case a ticked box reading favourable on an OFII survey form, with no signature attributable to the mayor or a properly delegated officer, could not stand in for the required opinion, and the guarantee was deemed lost. The practical message for British files is direct: request the full administrative file, check who actually signed the mayor’s opinion and what it says about your income and your flat, and plead the missing guarantee wherever the paper trail is thin. The Conseil d’État reinforced the same discipline from the opposite direction in CE, 26 June 2025, 496471, quashing an appeal judgment that had dismissed a resources-based challenge without answering the applicant’s plea of disability discrimination under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention: “sans se prononcer sur la discrimination en raison du handicap invoquée devant elle, la cour administrative d’appel de Nantes a insuffisamment motivé sa décision.” A prefect and a court must both answer the arguments actually put to them, including exemption claims and discrimination pleas, and silence on a pleaded exemption is an annulment ground. If your resources include disability allowance, or your housing situation involves a disability adaptation, say so expressly in the appeal so the judge is obliged to address it.

Where the child is already in France without lawful stay, the analysis doubles in urgency because a reunification refusal is then often accompanied by removal paperwork, the obligation to leave French territory known as OQTF, sometimes with a return ban and a residence assignment. The Lyon case cited above, 23LY02310, ended with “La requête de M. A… B… est rejetée”, the application dismissed and removal confirmed, despite Article 8 and best-interests arguments, because the court found the balance favoured enforcement on those facts. British parents should draw the operational lesson rather than despair: a child present unlawfully needs a parallel regularisation strategy from day one, usually a vie privée et familiale application under L423-23 supported by the schooling and integration evidence described earlier, filed before any removal order becomes final, with proof of filing kept and shown at every check. Never advise a child to overstay a visa while waiting for reunification paperwork, and never assume that an OFII receipt for the sponsor protects the child from enforcement.

B. How to build an appeal file that answers the prefect’s exact ground

Appeals are won by answering the stated ground with new, dated, labelled proof, not by resending the same bundle with a covering letter. For a resources refusal, rebuild twelve continuous months ending at the appeal date: every payslip, employment contract and extension, employer attestations confirming permanence, bank statements showing salary credits matching the slips, and, for the self-employed, the last tax notice, URSSAF statements and accountant’s letter together. Add the working spouse’s income with the same completeness, since L434-8 counts the couple’s combined resources. Where income genuinely falls short, do not hide the gap: document the trajectory, such as a permanent contract signed four months ago after agency work, quantify the monthly average against the SMIC-based floor for your family size, and request re-examination once the threshold is durably met rather than inviting a second refusal on identical figures. Where a disability allowance is in play, plead the L434-8 exemption expressly, produce the allowance award, and cite the Conseil d’État’s 496471 ruling on the duty to give reasons, because an unpleaded exemption is routinely overlooked. Keep certificats de travail, keep every translation, and keep a one-page chronology so the judge sees stability at a glance instead of reconstructing it from fifty loose pages.

For a housing refusal, produce a new lease or a formal accommodation certificate with the exact floor area, room count and availability date, plus recent photographs, the energy diagnostic and proof that the dwelling meets the health and equipment standards for your zone’s minimum area. If you have moved since the refusal, say so and prove the new address with the lease, rent receipts and the mayor’s new verification; if you have not moved, explain with measurements why the prefect miscalculated, for instance by showing that a converted 12 square metre garage was wrongly counted as a bedroom or, conversely, that a genuine 45 square metre flat for three people plainly exceeds the 22 plus 10 square metre requirement. Ask the mayor’s office how the verification visit is scheduled and make sure an adult who knows the file is present, because an absent occupant and an unanswered door generate the adverse OFII report that Marseille-type litigation later has to unpick. Where the refusal rests on the whole-family rule because you applied for one child only, attach the reasoned partial-reunification letter the statute contemplates: schooling certificates showing the second child finishing GCSEs in Kent, a medical letter documenting treatment that cannot be interrupted, or a sworn statement from the other parent allocating care, each tied expressly to “des motifs tenant à l’intérêt des enfants”, the children’s interests formula of L434-1.

For refusals turning on family life and proportionality, assemble the Article 8 pack as a lawyer would: school enrolment certificates for every year in France, report cards, attendance records, letters from teachers, GP and paediatrician letters, proof of French health cover, club and activity attestations, evidence of French language, and a calendar of daily care showing who takes the child to school, to appointments and on holidays. Mirror the statutory checklist in L423-23 by addressing intensity, length and stability of ties, living conditions, integration including knowledge of the Republic’s values, and remaining ties abroad, one heading per criterion, one set of exhibits per heading. Where the child is abroad, the same headings work prospectively: British school records showing disruption, evidence of the other parent’s consent or of sole care, and concrete plans for French schooling with a named school and a language-support arrangement. Add the civil-status foundation throughout: full birth certificates establishing filiation, the foreign court order and the other parent’s authorisation wherever L434-4 applies, marriage and divorce documents where relevant, each with a French translation by a sworn translator and, depending on the issuing country, an apostille or legalisation. The spouse guide’s warning bears repeating here: inconsistent spellings of names across English and French documents, unexplained, sink more files than any legal subtlety, so harmonise every name, date and place before filing and explain any variance in a short sworn statement.

Finally, choose the procedural vehicle deliberately. A recours gracieux asking the prefect to reconsider on new facts costs nothing and sometimes works within weeks where the refusal was plainly based on outdated figures, but it does not suspend removal and it rarely succeeds without genuinely new evidence. A tribunal application seeks annulment and, where appropriate, an injunction ordering re-examination within a stated time, as the Marseille tribunal did by enjoining review within two months; ask for that injunction expressly and for costs. Where removal threatens, emergency interim relief before the administrative judge and a simultaneous vie privée et familiale filing protect the child while the merits are argued. Keep complete copies of every submission with proof of delivery, portal references and appointment records, because the best-drafted appeal still fails if the applicant cannot prove what the administration received and when. And check the official Service Public reunification pages once more before posting: the six-month decision rule, the two-month mayor opinion rule and the appeal routes have statutory force, but the counters, forms and translation requirements around them move every year.

Conclusion

A British parent settled in France can bring children to live with them after Brexit, but the path is procedural and the administration applies it literally. Regroupement familial under L434-2 remains the standard route for minor children of the couple, conditional on eighteen months of lawful residence, stable and sufficient resources counted without solidarity benefits, suitable housing measured against the zone minima, and a file that passes in order through OFII, the mayor and the prefect within a six-month decision period. Children outside that frame, whether over eighteen, linked through a previous relationship without the required authorisation, or already living in France without papers, need the vie privée et familiale routes of L423-23 or L423-7, built on proved intensity and stability of ties, schooling, care and integration rather than on the reunification forms. A refusal, express or implied by six months of silence, must be answered on its exact ground and within the two-month court deadline, using the procedural guarantees the courts actually enforce: a genuine reasoned opinion from the mayor, reasons that address every pleaded exemption including disability, and a proportionality assessment under Article 8 that is earned with documents rather than assumed. Prepare the file chronologically, label every exhibit to the legal condition it proves, harmonise names and translations, and diary every deadline the day each letter arrives. The official pages and the CESEDA articles linked above give the current framework, but only a file-specific review can confirm which route fits your child, which evidence is missing and which appeal clock is already running.

Need a quick opinion on your case

Arrange a telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer from the firm to identify the correct route for your child, the missing evidence and the next deadline.

Call +33 6 46 60 58 22 to discuss your situation, or use the contact form on the firm’s website. The consultation can focus on regroupement familial, a refusal or implicit refusal, vie privée et familiale, or a residence permit appeal for your child.