You moved to France as a family, built a life in Lyon, Toulouse or a village in the Dordogne, and now the relationship is ending. The most urgent question has nothing to do with the house, the visa or the tax return. It is the children: where will they live, who decides, will a French judge listen to what they want, and can you take them back to Britain to be near grandparents and a support network? Since Brexit, British parents answer these questions as third-country nationals before a French family court, the juge aux affaires familiales, usually shortened to JAF, under French statutes that apply whatever passport you hold. This guide explains, entirely in plain English with UK spelling, how French law organises parental authority after separation, how the judge fixes the child’s residence and hears the child, what you must do before moving with the child, whether within France or back to the United Kingdom, what happens when one parent removes the child without agreement, and how to challenge each decision that goes against you. Every decisive rule below is quoted word for word from its official source so your adviser can check each point.<\/p>\n
Start with the principle that surprises many British parents. In England and Wales, separation often triggers a battle over who “gets custody”. In France, separation changes almost nothing about the legal starting point. Article 373-2 of the Civil Code<\/a> (Code civil, the French private-law statute) states: “La s\u00e9paration des parents est sans incidence sur les r\u00e8gles de d\u00e9volution de l’exercice de l’autorit\u00e9 parentale.” Autorit\u00e9 parentale, parental authority, is the French umbrella concept covering decisions about the child’s health, schooling, religion, daily life and contacts. Both parents normally keep exercising it jointly after separation, and each must preserve the child’s bond with the other: the same article continues, “Chacun des p\u00e8re et m\u00e8re doit maintenir des relations personnelles avec l’enfant et respecter les liens de celui-ci avec l’autre parent.” A parent who badmouths the other, blocks phone calls or engineers the child’s rejection of the other parent is therefore not merely behaving badly; that parent is breaching a statutory duty the judge weighs directly when fixing residence.<\/p>\n When parents agree, they can organise residence themselves in a parental agreement, and the JAF can homologate, formally approve, that agreement to give it enforceable force. When they disagree, the JAF decides, and French law offers three residence patterns. Article 373-2-9 of the Civil Code<\/a> provides: “la r\u00e9sidence de l’enfant peut \u00eatre fix\u00e9e en alternance au domicile de chacun des parents ou au domicile de l’un d’eux.” R\u00e9sidence en alternance, alternating residence, usually week-about, is the pattern British readers know as shared care. The same article lets the judge order it on a trial basis where parents disagree: “A la demande de l’un des parents ou en cas de d\u00e9saccord entre eux sur le mode de r\u00e9sidence de l’enfant, le juge peut ordonner \u00e0 titre provisoire une r\u00e9sidence en alternance dont il d\u00e9termine la dur\u00e9e.” At the end of that trial period the judge rules definitively. Where residence is fixed with one parent, the judge sets contact for the other, the droit de visite et d’h\u00e9bergement, the right to visit and to have the child stay over. Where the child’s welfare requires it, that contact can be organised in a supervised contact centre, and the statute is explicit that the handover itself can be protected: “Lorsque l’int\u00e9r\u00eat de l’enfant le commande ou lorsque la remise directe de l’enfant \u00e0 l’autre parent pr\u00e9sente un danger pour l’un d’eux, le juge en organise les modalit\u00e9s pour qu’elle pr\u00e9sente toutes les garanties n\u00e9cessaires.”<\/p>\n How does the judge choose between these patterns? Article 373-2-11 of the Civil Code<\/a> lists what the judge must weigh: “Lorsqu’il se prononce sur les modalit\u00e9s d’exercice de l’autorit\u00e9 parentale, le juge prend notamment en consid\u00e9ration : 1\u00b0 La pratique que les parents avaient pr\u00e9c\u00e9demment suivie ou les accords qu’ils avaient pu ant\u00e9rieurement conclure ; 2\u00b0 Les sentiments exprim\u00e9s par l’enfant mineur dans les conditions pr\u00e9vues \u00e0 l’article 388-1 ; 3\u00b0 L’aptitude de chacun des parents \u00e0 assumer ses devoirs et respecter les droits de l’autre ; 4\u00b0 Le r\u00e9sultat des expertises \u00e9ventuellement effectu\u00e9es, tenant compte notamment de l’\u00e2ge de l’enfant ; 5\u00b0 Les renseignements qui ont \u00e9t\u00e9 recueillis dans les \u00e9ventuelles enqu\u00eates et contre-enqu\u00eates sociales pr\u00e9vues \u00e0 l’article 373-2-12 ; 6\u00b0 Les pressions ou violences, \u00e0 caract\u00e8re physique ou psychologique, exerc\u00e9es par l’un des parents sur la personne de l’autre.” Three of these criteria decide most British-family cases in practice. First, past practice: the parent who did the school runs, knew the teachers, took the child to the paediatrician and managed homework starts with an advantage, because continuity favours the child. Second, each parent’s fitness to respect the other’s rights: a British father who tells the children their French mother will be deported after Brexit, or a French mother who hides school letters from the British father, damages their own case under criterion 3. Third, violence and pressure under criterion 6, added to the statute in recent years, which can reverse the outcome entirely, as explained below. Take this part of the case to the first hearing fully documented: school records, medical appointments, messages showing cooperation or obstruction, and any evidence of violence, because the JAF decides on papers and short hearings, not week-long trials.<\/p>\n Sole exercise of parental authority remains the exception. Article 373-2-1 of the Civil Code<\/a> provides: “Si l’int\u00e9r\u00eat de l’enfant le commande, le juge peut confier l’exercice de l’autorit\u00e9 parentale \u00e0 l’un des deux parents.” Even then, contact can be refused to the other parent only for serious reasons, “pour des motifs graves”, and the parent without authority keeps a right and duty to supervise maintenance and education and must be informed of important life choices. Money follows the same logic of shared responsibility. Article 371-2 of the Civil Code<\/a> states: “Chacun des parents contribue \u00e0 l’entretien et \u00e0 l’\u00e9ducation des enfants \u00e0 proportion de ses ressources, de celles de l’autre parent, ainsi que des besoins de l’enfant.” That duty survives loss of authority and even the child’s majority. The private agreement route matters here too: Article 373-2-2 of the Civil Code<\/a> lets maintenance take the form of a pension alimentaire, a monthly support payment, fixed by court decision, approved agreement, notarial deed or several other enforceable instruments, and since 2023 the family-benefits fund can intermediate payment to cut arrears. If you are also handling the divorce itself, read our companion guide on British divorce in France, jurisdiction, applicable law and recognition<\/a> alongside this article: divorce ends the marriage, while this article governs the children, and the two cases can run on different tracks.<\/p>\n Many British parents assume children have no voice in French courts. The opposite is true, and the child’s hearing, called the audition, is one of the most powerful procedural tools in a residence dispute. Article 388-1 of the Civil Code<\/a> provides: “Dans toute proc\u00e9dure le concernant, le mineur capable de discernement peut, sans pr\u00e9judice des dispositions pr\u00e9voyant son intervention ou son consentement, \u00eatre entendu par le juge ou, lorsque son int\u00e9r\u00eat le commande, par la personne d\u00e9sign\u00e9e par le juge \u00e0 cet effet.” Discernement means sufficient understanding, not a fixed age: in practice judges hear children from around seven or eight upwards, sometimes younger where maturity is clear. The decisive sentence follows immediately: “Cette audition est de droit lorsque le mineur en fait la demande.” Where the child personally asks to be heard, the hearing is a matter of right, not of judicial favour. The child may be heard alone, with a lawyer or with a trusted person of their choice, but the hearing does not make the child a party to the case, and the judge must check that the child was told of the right to be heard and to be assisted by a lawyer: “Le juge s’assure que le mineur a \u00e9t\u00e9 inform\u00e9 de son droit \u00e0 \u00eatre entendu et \u00e0 \u00eatre assist\u00e9 par un avocat.”<\/p>\n The refusal rules are strict, and they create a clean ground of challenge when a court gets them wrong. Article 338-4 of the Code of Civil Procedure<\/a> states: “Lorsque la demande est form\u00e9e par le mineur, le refus d’audition ne peut \u00eatre fond\u00e9 que sur son absence de discernement ou sur le fait que la proc\u00e9dure ne le concerne pas.” Only two lawful reasons exist for refusing the child’s own request: lack of discernment or irrelevance of the proceedings. Where the parents request the hearing, the judge has wider discretion and may refuse where it seems unnecessary or contrary to the child’s welfare, but in every case the child and the parties must be notified and the reasons stated in the final judgment: “Le mineur et les parties sont avis\u00e9s du refus par tout moyen. Dans tous les cas, les motifs du refus sont mentionn\u00e9s dans la d\u00e9cision au fond.” An unexplained refusal is therefore an appeal point on its own.<\/p>\n The Court of Cassation (Cour de cassation, France’s supreme court for private-law matters) enforces these rules firmly. On 16 February 2022, in case number 21-23.087 (Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 16 February 2022, no. 21-23.087<\/a>), a residence dispute where the mother had moved and the father sought transfer of residence, the court of appeal had fixed the child’s residence with the father without hearing the child, after an unfavourable answer to the child’s request sent merely by email. The Court of Cassation recalled the governing texts: “Selon le premier de ces textes, dans toute proc\u00e9dure le concernant, le mineur capable de discernement peut \u00eatre entendu par le juge et cette audition est de droit lorsqu’il en fait la demande”, and: “Selon le second, lorsque la demande d’audition est refus\u00e9e dans les conditions qu’il pr\u00e9voit, le mineur et les parties en sont avis\u00e9es par tout moyen et les motifs du refus sont mentionn\u00e9s dans la d\u00e9cision au fond.” It then found: “Il r\u00e9sulte des pi\u00e8ces de la proc\u00e9dure que l’enfant [F] avait form\u00e9 une demande d’audition au cours de l’instance opposant ses deux parents sur la fixation de sa r\u00e9sidence, \u00e0 laquelle il a \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9pondu d\u00e9favorablement, par voie de courriel, sans que les motifs de ce refus aient \u00e9t\u00e9 repris dans la d\u00e9cision au fond.” The result was total: “En statuant ainsi, la cour d’appel, qui n’a pas mis la Cour de cassation en mesure d’exercer son contr\u00f4le, a viol\u00e9 les textes susvis\u00e9s”, and the operative part reads: “CASSE ET ANNULE, en toutes ses dispositions, l’arr\u00eat rendu le 7 juillet 2021, entre les parties, par la cour d’appel d’Orl\u00e9ans”. For your case the lesson is practical. If your child is mature enough and wants to speak, put a written hearing request on the file early, ask for a lawyer for the child where the conflict is sharp, and if the court refuses without reasons in the judgment, that omission alone can support cassation. Never coach the child on what to say: judges detect rehearsed accounts quickly, and criterion 6 of Article 373-2-11 on pressure and violence can then turn against the coaching parent.<\/p>\n Separation often makes one parent want to move: a British mother in Bordeaux wants to return to Manchester to be near her parents; a British father posted to Paris wants to relocate to London with the children after the split. French law does not forbid moving, but it controls the consequences strictly. Article 373-2 of the Civil Code<\/a> imposes a prior-notice duty: “Tout changement de r\u00e9sidence de l’un des parents, d\u00e8s lors qu’il modifie les modalit\u00e9s d’exercice de l’autorit\u00e9 parentale, doit faire l’objet d’une information pr\u00e9alable et en temps utile de l’autre parent.” Any move that changes how parental authority works in practice, which a cross-Channel relocation always does, must be notified to the other parent beforehand and in good time. Where parents disagree, the statute designates the forum: “En cas de d\u00e9saccord, le parent le plus diligent saisit le juge aux affaires familiales qui statue selon ce qu’exige l’int\u00e9r\u00eat de l’enfant.” Go to the JAF before moving, not after: the parent who moves first and notifies later arrives before the judge as the parent who breached the statute and disrupted the child’s stability, while the parent who seises the court diligently arrives as the parent who respected it. The judge can then reallocate travel costs and adjust maintenance, since the same article adds: “Le juge r\u00e9partit les frais de d\u00e9placement et ajuste en cons\u00e9quence le montant de la contribution \u00e0 l’entretien et \u00e0 l’\u00e9ducation de l’enfant.”<\/p>\n The JAF also holds preventive powers that British parents should know before booking one-way Eurostar tickets. Article 373-2-6 of the Civil Code<\/a> provides: “Il peut notamment ordonner l’interdiction de sortie de l’enfant du territoire fran\u00e7ais sans l’autorisation des deux parents.” The judge can ban the child from leaving France without both parents’ consent, and that ban, the interdiction de sortie du territoire, is entered on the wanted-persons file by the public prosecutor, which means border police see it. The same article allows penalty payments, the astreinte, to enforce compliance, and even a civil fine up to 10,000 euros against a parent who gravely and repeatedly obstructs a residence or contact order: “Il peut, m\u00eame d’office, ordonner une astreinte pour assurer l’ex\u00e9cution de sa d\u00e9cision.” If your former partner threatens to take the children to Britain during “a holiday” from which you fear they will not return, apply to the JAF for the travel ban immediately, with messages and booking evidence attached, rather than waiting for the departure.<\/p>\n Two cross-border layers sit on top of the French statutes. First, jurisdiction. Since Brexit, Franco-British parental-responsibility cases involve one EU Member State and one third country, so the EU regulation that still governs the French side is Regulation (EU) 2019\/1111 on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement in matrimonial and parental-responsibility matters, known as Brussels II ter (Regulation (EU) 2019\/1111 on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement in matrimonial and parental-responsibility matters, known as Brussels II ter). Its core rule is that the courts of the Member State where the child is habitually resident have jurisdiction over parental responsibility, which means that while your children live in France, it is the French JAF who decides residence, contact and relocation, not an English court seised in parallel. An English order obtained after the French court was seised will not simply override the French proceedings, and trying to race the other parent to a “friendlier” court typically produces conflicting orders and years of enforcement litigation. Second, the English side of permission. British guidance is blunt: anyone with parental responsibility must consent before a child is taken abroad, and taking a child without that consent can be a criminal offence under English law (see the official guidance on getting permission to take a child abroad, gov.uk<\/a>). So a relocation needs both French and English clearance in practice: the French judgment or agreement authorising the move, plus the written consent of everyone holding English parental responsibility, or an English court order dispensing with it. Build the file the way the JAF thinks under Article 373-2-11: schooling continuity, language, the children’s views, housing and work in Britain, concrete contact proposals for the parent remaining in France including holiday division and video contact, travel-cost sharing, and why the move serves the child rather than punishing the other parent. Where the children have lived their whole lives in France, attend French schools and have their friends and doctors there, expect the judge to be cautious: French courts protect stability, and uprooting a settled child to satisfy a parent’s homesickness rarely succeeds without strong child-centred reasons.<\/p>\n When agreement and court permission are missing, the language changes. Keeping the children in Britain after an agreed holiday, or collecting them from school in France and boarding a ferry without consent, can amount to a wrongful removal or retention, called d\u00e9placement ou non-retour illicite. The remedy is not a fresh debate about who is the better parent. It is the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention of 25 October 1980, HCCH full text<\/a>), which both France and the United Kingdom apply. The Convention’s mechanism is return-first, custody-later: the child goes back to the country of habitual residence, and the courts of that country then decide residence and contact. The French official guide describes the procedure for parents facing this situation (see enl\u00e8vement parental, service-public.fr<\/a>), and the Justice Ministry’s central authority transmits return applications between the two countries.<\/p>\n The Court of Cassation restated the mechanism plainly on 10 July 2024 in case number 24-12.156 (Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 10 July 2024, no. 24-12.156<\/a>). It quoted the Convention’s engine room: “L’article 12, alin\u00e9as 1 et 2, de la Convention dispose : \u00ab Lorsqu’un enfant a \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9plac\u00e9 ou retenu illicitement au sens de l’article 3 et qu’une p\u00e9riode de moins d’un an s’est \u00e9coul\u00e9e \u00e0 partir du d\u00e9placement ou du non-retour au moment de l’introduction de la demande devant l’autorit\u00e9 judiciaire ou administrative de l’\u00c9tat contractant o\u00f9 se trouve l’enfant, l’autorit\u00e9 saisie ordonne son retour imm\u00e9diat.” It added that even after one year, return must still be ordered unless integration in the new surroundings is proved: “L’autorit\u00e9 judiciaire ou administrative, m\u00eame saisie apr\u00e8s l’expiration de la p\u00e9riode d’un an pr\u00e9vue \u00e0 l’alin\u00e9a pr\u00e9c\u00e9dent, doit aussi ordonner le retour de l’enfant, \u00e0 moins qu’il ne soit \u00e9tabli que l’enfant s’est int\u00e9gr\u00e9 dans son nouveau milieu.” The Court then fixed the destination principle: “La Convention ne pr\u00e9cise pas l’\u00c9tat \u00e0 destination duquel le retour de l’enfant doit \u00eatre ordonn\u00e9”, but its object is “de garantir le retour imm\u00e9diat de l’enfant dans l’\u00c9tat de sa r\u00e9sidence habituelle”, because the Convention aims, with the child’s best interests as the primary consideration, at restoring the prior situation by bringing the child back within the reach of the courts of the initial habitual residence, which keep jurisdiction over parental authority. In short, “Le principe est donc le retour de l’enfant dans l’\u00c9tat de sa r\u00e9sidence habituelle”, and exceptions are narrow.<\/p>\n Those narrow defences decide real cases, so understand them before relying on them. The Convention refuses return where there is a grave risk that return exposes the child to physical or psychological harm or places the child in an intolerable situation, where the child objects and is mature enough for the objection to count, where the left-behind parent consented or acquiesced, and where more than a year passed plus proven integration. French courts interpret these exceptions strictly: general claims about better schools in Kent, cheaper housing or a new partner do not qualify, while documented domestic violence, detailed medical evidence or a mature child’s firm, consistent objection can. Speed therefore matters enormously on both sides. A left-behind parent should file the return application within weeks through the central authority or directly before the competent court, gather proof of habitual residence in France and of joint custody rights plus their actual exercise, and seek interim contact pending return. A parent opposing return should assemble evidence that fits a recognised exception precisely, not a broad welfare comparison, and should expect the court to order protective measures alongside return where risk is alleged. Either side can appeal, and the Court of Cassation reviews legal reasoning, not facts: it checks whether the lower court applied the Convention correctly and reasoned each exception, as the 2024 ruling shows. Beyond return proceedings, the ordinary challenge ladder stays open: appeal the JAF residence order within the stated deadline, usually one month from service for contentious family judgments, request provisional measures where the child is at risk, ask for the travel ban where departure threatens, and file a criminal complaint for non-representation of a child, the offence of refusing to hand the child over, where contact orders are flouted (see the official pages on non-repr\u00e9sentation d’enfant, service-public.fr<\/a> and on r\u00e9sidence de l’enfant en cas de s\u00e9paration, service-public.fr<\/a>, plus the general guide to parental authority on separation, service-public.fr<\/a>). Where violence drives the separation, the protection-order route in our guide on protection orders and domestic violence<\/a> interacts directly with residence: criterion 6 of Article 373-2-11 and the travel-ban powers give the JAF tools to protect the child and the victim parent together. If you are also bringing children from Britain to join you in France rather than fighting over children already here, the immigration routes are covered in our guide on bringing your children through regroupement familial or vie priv\u00e9e et familiale<\/a>.<\/p>\n A British parent separating in France keeps joint parental authority as the starting point, because separation does not alter its devolution, and the JAF then fixes residence at one home or alternating between both, guided by past practice, the child’s words, each parent’s fitness to respect the other, expert and social-enquiry evidence, and any violence or pressure. The child who can discern may be heard, and that hearing is a matter of right on the child’s own request, with refusal lawful only for lack of discernment or irrelevance and reasons compulsory in the judgment, on pain of cassation as the February 2022 ruling demonstrates. No move that reshapes parental authority happens unilaterally: prior notice in good time is a statutory duty, disagreement goes to the most diligent parent’s JAF application decided on the child’s welfare, and the judge can ban foreign travel, impose penalty payments and fine obstruction. While the children live in France, the French courts hold jurisdiction over parental responsibility, English consent or court permission is still needed for a British move, and wrongful removal triggers the Hague return-first mechanism with its one-year rule, narrow defences and strict judicial reading confirmed in July 2024. Prepare every step on paper, apply before moving, and challenge fast when a decision or a removal goes against you: in residence cases the parent with the earlier, fuller and calmer file usually holds the decisive advantage.<\/p>\n Separation, a planned move with the children or a removal without your consent cannot wait for the next school term. Bring your existing judgments or agreements, school and medical records, any messages about the move and your residence documents to an avocat before a deadline passes. Our firm offers a telephone consultation within 48 hours with an avocat of the firm. Call +33 6 46 60 58 22<\/a> (Ma\u00eetre Reda Kohen), or reach us through our contact page<\/a>. We assist British parents in Paris and across the \u00cele-de-France as well as throughout France.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Separating in France as a British parent? Joint parental authority, JAF residence orders, your child’s right to be heard, moving back to Britain, and Hague return cases \u2014 explained in plain English.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":16564,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kj_source_type":"","_kj_official_id":"","_kj_official_url":"","_kj_judilibre_id":"","_kj_jur":"","_kj_lieu":"","_kj_chambre":"","_kj_rg":"","_kj_date":"","activitypub_content_warning":"","activitypub_content_visibility":"","activitypub_max_image_attachments":4,"activitypub_interaction_policy_quote":"anyone","activitypub_status":"federated","footnotes":""},"categories":[80312,80314],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2127192","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-british-desk","category-decryptage"],"yoast_head":"\nB. Will the French judge hear what your child wants: the audition, discernment and the right to a lawyer<\/h3>\n
II. Can You Move Back to Britain With Your Child After Separation, and What Happens If a Parent Takes the Child Without Agreement?<\/h2>\n
A. Moving with the child within France or back to the UK: the prior-notice duty, the travel ban and who has jurisdiction<\/h3>\n
B. Wrongful removal or retention: the Hague return case, the narrow defences and how to challenge the outcome<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
Need a quick opinion on your case<\/h2>\n