Your former partner took your child to England for what was meant to be a short holiday, and the child has never come back. Or the school in Lyon tells you that your ex has withdrawn your daughter without warning, and the next message you receive is a photograph of a new bedroom in Manchester. Since Brexit, this nightmare follows one and the same legal road: the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, applied between France and the United Kingdom through the two countries’ central authorities and, on French soil, through the public prosecutor and the family judge. The European shortcut that used to organise returns inside the Union no longer operates between London and Paris, but the Convention route is alive, fast on paper, and free when the French prosecutor brings the case. This article explains, step by step, how a British parent living in France reacts when the other parent removes or retains the child across the Channel: how to prove that the removal was wrongful, whom to contact first, which papers to gather within days, what the criminal law adds to the civil return claim, and how to challenge a court decision that refuses to order the return. Every decisive statement below rests on a French statute or a ruling of the Cour de cassation (France’s supreme court for civil and criminal matters) quoted word for word, because in this field an approximate citation can cost you your child.<\/p>\n
A removal is not wrongful simply because you did not agree to it. Under the Hague system, the displacement or the retention of a child is wrongful only where it breaches rights of custody attributed to you, alone or jointly, under the law of the State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the move. That single sentence carries the whole first battle, so read it again slowly. Three questions decide whether your case qualifies: where was your child’s habitual residence the day before the removal, did you hold custody rights under that country’s law, and were you actually exercising them or would have done so without the removal. If your family lived in France, French law answers the second question, and French law starts from a principle that surprises many British parents: joint parental authority is the default, and separation changes nothing to it. Article 373-2 of the Civil Code states that “La s\u00e9paration des parents est sans incidence sur les r\u00e8gles de d\u00e9volution de l’exercice de l’autorit\u00e9 parentale” (Civil Code, Art. 373-2<\/a>), which means that separation has no effect on who holds parental authority. The same article adds that each parent must maintain personal relations with the child and respect the child’s ties with the other parent. In plain terms, a father or mother who shares autorit\u00e9 parentale (parental authority, the bundle of rights and duties over the child’s person) holds a right of custody for Hague purposes, and taking the child to England without that parent’s consent is capable of being wrongful even where no court has ever fixed residence.<\/p>\n The foundation of that authority is worth quoting because French judges return to it constantly. Article 371-1 of the Civil Code provides that “L’autorit\u00e9 parentale est un ensemble de droits et de devoirs ayant pour finalit\u00e9 l’int\u00e9r\u00eat de l’enfant” (Civil Code, Art. 371-1<\/a>), meaning parental authority is a set of rights and duties whose purpose is the child’s welfare. It belongs to the parents until majority or emancipation, to protect the child in safety, health, privacy and morals, to secure education and allow development, with respect owed to the child’s person. A parent who reads that text understands why French courts treat a unilateral move to England as a serious matter rather than a private arrangement: the authority belongs to both parents jointly, and one parent cannot simply relocate the centre of the child’s life by stealth. The Cour de cassation confirmed the practical consequence in a 2021 ruling on a Franco-German case, where a mother challenged an order for immediate return by arguing that a German provisional order had stripped the father of custody. The Court examined the custody position under the law of the former habitual residence and rejected her appeal, so the return stood. The lesson for a British parent is direct: if your child lived in France and you shared parental authority, the removal to England starts as wrongful, and it is the other parent who must then find one of the narrow exceptions to avoid return.<\/p>\n Habitual residence is a question of fact, not of passports or visas. Judges look at where the child actually lived day to day: the school in France, the doctor, the friends, the bedroom, the length and regularity of presence, and the parents’ shared intention about where the family home was. A British child who has attended school in Bordeaux for two years is habitually resident in France even with a British passport and even if the parents always spoke English at home. Conversely, a child sent to England years ago with both parents’ written agreement, enrolled there and settled there, may now be habitually resident in England, and a return claim to France would then fail at the first hurdle. Since 1 January 2021, after the end of the Brexit transition period, the European Union regulation that used to organise child returns inside the Union no longer operates between France and the United Kingdom, so these Franco-British cases run entirely under the Hague Convention through the French and British central authorities. The British government’s own guidance confirms the route in these terms: the Convention helps bring an abducted child under 16 back to the country where the child usually lives (UK guidance on international parental child abduction<\/a>), and it directs parents living in Britain to contact the UK Central Authority (UK guidance on international parental child abduction<\/a>). The French position mirrors it, as shown below. Do not waste weeks arguing about which country’s courts should decide long-term custody: the Hague return judge does not award custody and does not decide where the child will live until majority. The return judge answers one question only, namely whether the child must come back at once to the country of habitual residence so that the courts of that country can then decide custody calmly. Our detailed guide to the custody battle that follows a separation in France explains how the family judge then fixes residence, contact and maintenance, and you should read it alongside this article to understand the two stages: first the emergency return, then the long-term residence decision, described in our guide for British parents facing separation and child residence proceedings in France<\/a>.<\/p>\n Proof decides everything, and proof must be assembled in days, not months. From the hour you realise the child will not come back, build a file with this discipline. First, evidence of habitual residence in France: school certificates, medical records, extracurricular registrations, the lease or title showing the family home, and any family correspondence showing France was the agreed base. Second, evidence of your custody rights: the child’s French birth certificate showing both parents, any divorce judgment or family court order, any homologated (court-approved) parental agreement, and proof that you exercised your role, such as school run messages, payments for activities, and medical appointments you attended. Third, evidence of the wrongful character: the messages in which the trip was presented as a holiday with a return date, the unused return tickets, the email where you refused the move, and the subsequent messages showing retention. Fourth, evidence of the child’s current situation in England as far as you know it: address, school if any, and the other parent’s statements. Keep originals and screenshots with dates, back everything up outside your phone, and write a one-page chronology while memory is fresh. If you had sole custody under a judgment, say so loudly and produce it; if you shared authority, say that and produce the birth certificate and the absence of any contrary order. The single most common reason Hague claims stall is a parent who waits three months hoping the situation will settle, then files with vague assertions and no dated documents. Speed and paper win these cases.<\/p>\n You have two doors into the French system, and you should knock on both at once. The first door is the French central authority, which the Ministry of Justice describes as follows: contact the French central authority, the department for mutual assistance, private international law and European law within the civil affairs directorate of the Ministry of Justice (French Justice Ministry guide to international child abduction<\/a>) In English, that is the department for mutual assistance, private international law and European law within the civil affairs directorate of the Ministry of Justice, reachable at the dedicated email address published by the ministry, and the ministry also reminds parents that they can call 116 000 at any time, the free number for missing children and parental abductions. The central authority transmits your return request to its British counterpart and organises the search for voluntary solutions, but it does not itself order anyone to do anything. The second door is the judicial one, and here French law gives left-behind parents a remarkable tool: the public prosecutor route, which costs you nothing. The Ministry of Justice states it plainly: a parent of a child abducted into France who seeks return pays no court fees where the public prosecutor brings the case (French Justice Ministry guide to international child abduction<\/a>) In other words, where the prosecutor brings the return case before the court, you pay no court fees for that action, though you remain free to instruct your own avocat (lawyer) at your own expense, with legal aid available if your income falls below the threshold.<\/p>\n The prosecutor route works through a precise statutory chain that every British parent should understand, because it explains who does what and how quickly the machine can move. Article 1210-4 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that “L’autorit\u00e9 centrale d\u00e9sign\u00e9e dans le cadre des instruments internationaux et europ\u00e9ens relatifs au d\u00e9placement illicite international d’enfants transmet au procureur de la R\u00e9publique pr\u00e8s le tribunal judiciaire territorialement comp\u00e9tent en application de l’article L. 211-12 du code de l’organisation judiciaire la demande de retour dont elle a \u00e9t\u00e9 saisie.” (CPC, Art. 1210-4<\/a>) That means the central authority forwards the return request to the procureur de la R\u00e9publique (public prosecutor) attached to the territorially competent tribunal judiciaire (ordinary civil and criminal court), identified through the judicial organisation code. The prosecutor then orders every useful step to locate the child or confirm the child’s location, informs any court already dealing with parental authority, and brings the return action. The case itself goes before a specialised judge: Article 1210-5 of the same code states that “Les actions engag\u00e9es sur le fondement des dispositions des instruments internationaux et europ\u00e9ens relatives au d\u00e9placement illicite international d’enfants sont port\u00e9es devant le juge aux affaires familiales du tribunal judiciaire territorialement comp\u00e9tent en application de l’article L. 211-12 du code de l’organisation judiciaire.” (CPC, Art. 1210-5<\/a>) The juge aux affaires familiales (family judge, the specialist judge for parental authority, residence and contact) is therefore the judge of the return, and the same provision allows that judge to forbid the child from leaving France without both parents’ authorisation once seized of a return request. In practice, where your child has been taken from France to England, the mirror image applies: you contact the French central authority from France, it liaises with the UK Central Authority, and proceedings for return are brought before the English courts, with your French file transmitted through the channel. Where the child has been brought to France and retained here, the French prosecutor and the French family judge take over directly on French soil.<\/p>\n One ruling of the Cour de cassation settles a question that confuses many parents: whose side is the prosecutor on. In a 2022 decision concerning a return request to Canada, the Court approved an appeal court that had accepted a father’s third-party challenge, holding that “le procureur de la R\u00e9publique, saisi en application de l’article 1210-4 du code de proc\u00e9dure civile et tenu de faire ex\u00e9cuter la demande de retour \u00e9manant d’un Etat \u00e9tranger sur le fondement des dispositions de la Convention de La Haye du 25 octobre 1980, a, lorsqu’il introduit une proc\u00e9dure judiciaire afin d’obtenir le retour de l’enfant, la qualit\u00e9 de partie principale et ne saurait repr\u00e9senter les int\u00e9r\u00eats de l’un des parents.” (Cass., 16 Feb. 2022, No 21-19.061<\/a>) Translated, the prosecutor, seized under Article 1210-4 and bound to enforce a foreign State’s return request under the Hague Convention, acts as a principal party when bringing return proceedings and does not represent either parent’s interests. That status has two practical consequences you must grasp. First, the prosecutor’s involvement does not replace your own lawyer: the prosecutor pursues the Convention’s return mechanism in the public interest, while your avocat defends your personal position, files your evidence, answers the other parent’s defences, and prepares the appeal if needed. Second, because the prosecutor is a principal party and not your representative, the other parent cannot treat you as bound by every position the prosecutor takes, and third-party remedies remain open, as that very case showed. So instruct an avocat experienced in Franco-British family litigation from day one even where the prosecutor acts: the free route handles the engine, your lawyer steers your carriage.<\/p>\n Your papers for the central authority and the court should arrive as one organised bundle. Include proof of identity and parenthood, proof of the child’s habitual residence in France, proof of your custody rights and their exercise, the written evidence of the trip and the retention, any prior judgments or agreements with certified translations, recent photographs, and a precise statement of where you believe the child is in England. Add the one-page chronology and a list of witnesses with contact details. If any document is in English only, have it translated by a sworn translator, because a French judge works in French and an English exhibit without translation slows the case and weakens its impact. File the criminal complaint in parallel, as explained in Part II, and ask your avocat about protective orders for the next holiday period, because prevention and return are two halves of the same strategy. Parents who present within weeks a complete, translated, chronological file put the judge in a position to order return quickly; parents who dribble out documents over months invite the other side’s favourite argument, namely that the child has now settled and that time itself opposes return.<\/p>\n The civil return claim is not your only weapon. French criminal law treats a parent’s removal or retention of a child as an offence in its own right, and a well-drafted plainte (criminal complaint) changes the balance of power: it creates an official record, triggers police checks, supports border measures, and gives you leverage in negotiations. Two core offences matter here. Article 227-5 of the Criminal Code punishes the refusal to hand over a child: “Le fait de refuser ind\u00fbment de repr\u00e9senter un enfant mineur \u00e0 la personne qui a le droit de le r\u00e9clamer est puni d’un an d’emprisonnement et de 15 000 euros d’amende.” (Criminal Code, Art. 227-5<\/a>) That covers the parent who keeps the child at the end of contact time and refuses to return the child to the parent entitled to claim the child. Article 227-7 punishes removal by a relative: “Le fait, par tout ascendant, de soustraire un enfant mineur des mains de ceux qui exercent l’autorit\u00e9 parentale ou auxquels il a \u00e9t\u00e9 confi\u00e9 ou chez qui il a sa r\u00e9sidence habituelle, est puni d’un an d’emprisonnement et de 15 000 euros d’amende.” (Criminal Code, Art. 227-7<\/a>) That covers the grandparent or parent who takes the child away from those exercising parental authority or from the child’s habitual home. Both carry one year’s imprisonment and a 15,000 euro fine, and both apply regardless of whether a Hague return case is running, because the criminal judge protects the custody order while the family judge organises the return.<\/p>\n Where the child is kept abroad, the penalties increase sharply, and this aggravation was written for exactly your situation. Article 227-9 of the Criminal Code states that “Les faits d\u00e9finis par les articles 227-5 et 227-7 sont punis de trois ans d’emprisonnement et de 45 000 euros d’amende : 1\u00b0 Si l’enfant mineur est retenu au-del\u00e0 de cinq jours sans que ceux qui ont le droit de r\u00e9clamer qu’il leur soit repr\u00e9sent\u00e9 sachent o\u00f9 il se trouve ; 2\u00b0 Si l’enfant mineur est retenu ind\u00fbment hors du territoire de la R\u00e9publique.” (Criminal Code, Art. 227-9<\/a>) In English: the basic offences rise to three years’ imprisonment and a 45,000 euro fine where the child is kept for more than five days without the entitled persons knowing where the child is, or where the child is wrongfully kept outside French territory. A retention in Manchester, Leeds or London squarely meets the second case once wrongfulness is established, and often the first as well where the taking parent hides the address. File your complaint with the police or the prosecutor of your home district in France promptly, attaching the same chronological file as the Hague request, and ask expressly that the complaint mention Articles 227-5 or 227-7 with the aggravation of Article 227-9 for retention outside the territory. A complaint does not replace the Hague claim and does not by itself bring the child home from England, since French police do not arrest in Manchester, but it opens a criminal file, allows an arrest warrant framework within France, records the wrongfulness for the family judge, and deters the taking parent from travelling through France with the child.<\/p>\n Prevention deserves equal attention, because many Franco-British abductions begin as an agreed holiday that turns into retention. If relations are tense and a trip to England is planned, ask the family judge before departure for an interdiction de sortie du territoire (prohibition on leaving French territory) without both parents’ authorisation. Article 373-2-6 of the Civil Code empowers the judge to order that “Il peut notamment ordonner l’interdiction de sortie de l’enfant du territoire fran\u00e7ais sans l’autorisation des deux parents” (Civil Code, Art. 373-2-6<\/a>), meaning the judge may notably order that the child cannot leave France without both parents’ permission. The same article adds that “Cette interdiction de sortie du territoire sans l’autorisation des deux parents est inscrite au fichier des personnes recherch\u00e9es par le procureur de la R\u00e9publique” (Civil Code, Art. 373-2-6<\/a>), so the ban is registered on the wanted-persons file by the prosecutor and produces alerts at the border. A parent who then attempts to board a ferry at Calais or a flight at Charles de Gaulle with the child faces a police check, and the attempt itself becomes evidence of intent. Combine the ban with practical steps: keep the child’s passport position agreed in writing, require return tickets before departure, and set a written return protocol with school dates. And if a return order is eventually made in your favour, enforcement on French soil has teeth: Article 373-2 of the Civil Code allows that, exceptionally and at the request of the interested person or the family judge, “le procureur de la R\u00e9publique peut requ\u00e9rir le concours de la force publique pour faire ex\u00e9cuter une d\u00e9cision du juge aux affaires familiales” (Civil Code, Art. 373-2<\/a>), which means the prosecutor can call on police assistance to enforce a family judge’s decision. Return orders are therefore not polite suggestions; they are enforceable court decisions backed by the State’s coercive power.<\/p>\n A refusal to order return is not the end of the road. The Hague system in France offers a ladder of challenge: appeal to the cour d’appel (court of appeal) against the family judge’s judgment, then a pourvoi en cassation (final appeal on points of law) to the Cour de cassation, which reviews whether the lower courts applied the Convention correctly. The four rulings cited in this article prove the ladder is real and used: appeal courts in Aix-en-Provence, Toulouse and Basse-Terre decided return cases, and the Cour de cassation reviewed them in 2021, 2022, 2024 and 2025, sometimes quashing the refusal and sometimes confirming the return. Your avocat must litigate every return hearing as if an appeal will follow, with complete exhibits, precise legal framing, and an explicit request that the court answer each Convention argument, because the Cour de cassation quashes decisions whose reasoning is too vague to show that a Convention exception was truly established. Time works against the left-behind parent, so instruct your lawyer to prepare the appeal skeleton from the day of the first hearing rather than from the day of an adverse judgment.<\/p>\n The decisive legal point, repeated by the Cour de cassation without mercy, is that exceptions to return are narrow and must be proved with concrete evidence about the child, not with general complaints about the other parent or about life abroad. In its 2 July 2025 decision, the Court opened with the rule itself: “il ne peut \u00eatre fait exception au retour imm\u00e9diat de l’enfant que s’il existe un risque de danger grave ou de cr\u00e9ation d’une situation intol\u00e9rable.” (Cass., 2 July 2025, No 24-22.101<\/a>) Only a risk of grave danger or of an intolerable situation justifies refusing immediate return. In that case the appeal court had refused return to Peru, reasoning that the mother lived between two countries, that the child described sometimes unsuitable maternal behaviour, and that the sufficiently mature child clearly wished to stay in France with her father. The Cour de cassation quashed the decision, holding that the lower court had ruled “par des motifs impropres \u00e0 caract\u00e9riser, au regard de l’int\u00e9r\u00eat sup\u00e9rieur de l’enfant, le danger grave encouru par celle-ci en cas de retour imm\u00e9diat ou la situation intol\u00e9rable qu’un tel retour cr\u00e9erait \u00e0 son \u00e9gard” (Cass., 2 July 2025, No 24-22.101<\/a>), meaning on grounds incapable of establishing, in light of the child’s best interests, the grave danger the child would face on immediate return or the intolerable situation such return would create. For a British parent this is the most useful passage in recent French case law: neither the child’s preference alone, nor maternal instability in the abstract, nor a pleasant new life in the refuge country satisfies Article 13(b) of the Convention. The court must identify a concrete grave danger on return, such as proven violence, abuse, or a complete absence of care arrangements, and must explain it. If the judgment refusing your child’s return merely praises the new English setup and repeats that the child is happy there, that reasoning is vulnerable on appeal and in cassation.<\/p>\n The second classic defence is time and settlement: the taking parent argues that more than a year has passed and that the child has settled, so return should be refused. The Cour de cassation recalled the exact rule in a 2024 decision by quoting Article 12 of the Convention: “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.” (Cass., 10 July 2024, No 24-12.156<\/a>) And for late applications: “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.” (Cass., 10 July 2024, No 24-12.156<\/a>) In short, return within the first year is in principle automatic, and even after a year the court must still order return unless integration into the new environment is affirmatively proved. The same decision explains the philosophy: the Convention aims at restoring the prior situation by bringing the child back within reach of the courts of the initial habitual residence, which keep jurisdiction over parental authority. Two consequences follow for your strategy. First, file within weeks so the one-year clock never becomes an issue; every month of delay is a gift to the other side’s settlement argument. Second, if you are already past a year, attack integration evidence head on: recent arrival, school difficulties, language gaps, absence of stable housing, and continued contact with France all undermine the claim that the child has truly settled. The full text of the Convention, with Articles 3, 12 and 13 in their authentic wording, is freely available on the Hague Conference site at the official full text of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980<\/a>, and the French Justice Ministry’s guide to international child abduction and cross-border contact rights<\/a> sets out the central authority route.<\/p>\n The child’s own voice plays a role but a bounded one. French courts hear mature children and note their views, yet the 2025 ruling shows that a clear wish to stay, even from a child found sufficiently mature and capable of discernment, does not by itself establish grave danger. Challenge a refusal that leans only on the child’s stated preference by demanding evidence of the underlying danger, by requesting a proper hearing record, and by showing the ties the child keeps with France and with you. Mirror-image, if you oppose a return requested against you in France, perhaps because you fled genuine domestic violence with the child, build the Article 13(b) file with the seriousness the Cour de cassation demands: dated medical certificates, police reports, witness statements, photographs, and proof that no protective arrangement awaits on return, because bare allegations fail. The British side of the mirror matters too: the UK guidance reminds parents to check Convention coverage and to use the central authorities, and the UK page on international parental child abduction and the 1980 Hague Convention<\/a> explains the under-16 scope and the first steps. Keep every deadline, answer every court letter, never breach an existing contact order yourself, and never attempt self-help by seizing the child back across the border: a second wrongful removal destroys your moral standing before the judge and can expose you to the very criminal provisions examined above.<\/p>\n When your ex keeps your child in England without your agreement, the law gives you a structured emergency path rather than a leap into the unknown. Prove habitual residence in France and joint parental authority, seize the French central authority and the prosecutor’s free route at once, file a complete translated bundle within weeks, lodge the criminal complaint that records the wrongfulness, and treat any refusal as the start of the appeal ladder rather than its end. The Cour de cassation holds French courts to a strict standard: immediate return is the principle, and only a concretely proved grave danger, an intolerable situation, or, after a year, a genuinely proved integration can displace it. Neither a pleasant new bedroom in Manchester nor a child’s offhand wish is enough on its own. Act early, write everything down, and put an experienced Franco-British family lawyer between you and the procedure before the other side’s delay becomes the other side’s argument.<\/p>\n A child kept abroad cannot wait for the next school term. Bring your existing judgments or agreements, school and medical records, every message about the trip and the retention, 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 Legal sources: Civil Code, Article 371-1, on L\u00e9gifrance<\/a>, Civil Code, Article 373-2, on L\u00e9gifrance<\/a>, Civil Code, Article 373-2-6, on L\u00e9gifrance<\/a>, Criminal Code, Article 227-5, on L\u00e9gifrance<\/a>, Criminal Code, Article 227-7, on L\u00e9gifrance<\/a>, Criminal Code, Article 227-9, on L\u00e9gifrance<\/a>, Code of Civil Procedure, Article 1210-4, on L\u00e9gifrance<\/a>, Code of Civil Procedure, Article 1210-5, on L\u00e9gifrance<\/a>, Cour de cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, 2 July 2025, No 24-22.101<\/a>, Cour de cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, 16 February 2022, No 21-19.061<\/a>, Cour de cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, 10 July 2024, No 24-12.156<\/a>, Cour de cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, 8 July 2021, No 21-13.556<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Your child taken to England without your consent? Hague return via the French prosecutor, criminal complaint, and how to challenge a refusal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":16426,"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-2127438","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-british-desk","category-decryptage"],"yoast_head":"\nB. How Do You Start the Hague Return Claim From France? Central Authorities, the Free Prosecutor Route and the Papers to Prepare Now<\/h3>\n
II. The Other Parent Will Not Bring Your Child Back or the French Court Has Refused Return: Criminal Law, Enforcement and How to Challenge the Decision<\/h2>\n
A. What Does French Criminal Law Add When Your Child Is Kept in England? Complaints, Aggravated Penalties and the Travel Ban That Protects the Next Holiday<\/h3>\n
B. How Do You Challenge a Refusal to Order Return? Appeals, Cassation and the Defences French Courts Actually Accept<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
Need a quick opinion on your case<\/h2>\n