You married in England, settled in France, bought a flat in Paris or a house in the Dordogne, and now the marriage is over. Since Brexit, divorcing across the Channel raises three practical questions that decide everything else: which court is allowed to hear the case, which country’s law divides the house, the savings and the pensions, and whether the resulting order will be recognised on the other side of the Channel. This guide answers all three for a British reader living in France. It explains every French legal term the first time it appears, quotes the exact statutes and court decisions that govern your situation, and shows where enforcement or a challenge can still change the outcome. The French approach differs profoundly from the English one: France works with fixed statutory divorce tracks and a lump-sum compensatory payment, while England gives its judges a wide discretion over property and pension sharing. Knowing which system applies first is what protects the house and the retirement income.<\/p>\n
Divorce cases in France belong to a specialist family judge called the juge aux affaires familiales, usually shortened to JAF. This judge sits inside the local civil court, the tribunal judiciaire, and decides the divorce itself as well as parental authority, the children’s residence, maintenance and the financial consequences between spouses. The territorial rule is set by article 1070 of the Code of Civil Procedure<\/a>: “Le juge aux affaires familiales territorialement comp\u00e9tent est : – le juge du lieu o\u00f9 se trouve la r\u00e9sidence de la famille” (translation: the competent family judge is the judge of the place where the family home is located). If you live in Paris or the Ile-de-France, that means the JAF of the tribunal judiciaire of your arrondissement’s jurisdiction, in practice concentrated at the tribunal judiciaire de Paris on the Ile de la Cit\u00e9 for Paris residents, or the tribunal judiciaire of Nanterre, Bobigny or Cr\u00e9teil for the inner suburbs depending on where the family actually lives. When parents live apart, the same article sends the case to the judge of the place where the children habitually live with the parent who looks after them day to day. Competence is assessed on the day the application is filed, so a tactical move just before filing does not shift the case.<\/p>\n French law offers four divorce tracks, listed in article 229 of the Civil Code<\/a>: divorce by mutual consent, acceptance of the principle of the breakdown, definitive alteration of the marriage bond, and fault. The first track, governed by article 229-1<\/a>, has existed in its modern form since 2017 and needs no judge at all when there is no minor child asking to be heard: “Les \u00e9poux peuvent consentir mutuellement \u00e0 leur divorce par acte sous signature priv\u00e9e contresign\u00e9 par avocats, d\u00e9pos\u00e9 au rang des minutes d’un notaire” (translation: spouses may consent mutually to their divorce by private deed countersigned by lawyers, filed with a notary). Each spouse must have his or her own lawyer, the agreement must contain the compulsory mentions listed in article 229-3<\/a> on pain of nullity, a fifteen-day reflection period applies, and the notary’s filing gives the agreement a certified date and enforceability, a quality called force ex\u00e9cutoire. The official English pages of the French public service describe both routes, before a judge and without a judge, at service-public.fr: Divorce, legal separation<\/a>. For a British couple who agree on everything, this lawyer-led route is usually the fastest and cheapest, but it is unavailable the moment one spouse wants to fight over the house, the pension or the children.<\/p>\n The three court-based tracks each answer a different situation. Acceptance of the breakdown, under article 233 of the Civil Code<\/a>, applies when both spouses accept that the marriage is over without raking over the reasons: “Le divorce peut \u00eatre demand\u00e9 conjointement par les \u00e9poux lorsqu’ils acceptent le principe de la rupture du mariage sans consid\u00e9ration des faits \u00e0 l’origine de celle-ci” (translation: divorce may be applied for jointly by the spouses where they accept the principle of the breakdown of the marriage without regard to the facts that caused it). Once given, that acceptance cannot be taken back, even on appeal. Definitive alteration of the bond, under article 238<\/a>, covers the spouse who simply leaves and waits: “L’alt\u00e9ration d\u00e9finitive du lien conjugal r\u00e9sulte de la cessation de la communaut\u00e9 de vie entre les \u00e9poux, lorsqu’ils vivent s\u00e9par\u00e9s depuis un an lors de la demande en divorce” (translation: definitive alteration results from the end of shared life where the spouses have lived apart for one year when divorce is applied for). Fault-based divorce remains available but requires proof of a serious breach of marital duties, and most British applicants in France use acceptance or alteration instead. The court application, called a requ\u00eate, must list both spouses’ identity, nationality, addresses, marriage details and children, and article 1090 of the Code of Civil Procedure<\/a> warns that “La requ\u00eate, qui n’indique pas les faits \u00e0 l’origine de la demande, doit contenir, \u00e0 peine d’irrecevabilit\u00e9” the names, occupations, residence, nationality, dates and places of birth of each spouse and the date and place of the marriage (translation: the application, which does not state the facts behind the claim, must contain, on pain of inadmissibility, those details). An incomplete requ\u00eate can therefore be thrown out before the merits are even examined.<\/p>\n Brexit changed the cross-border frame but did not close French courts to British spouses. Jurisdiction between the United Kingdom and France no longer runs through the old Brussels IIa automatic system; it now runs, on the French side, through Regulation (EU) 2019\/1111, known as Brussels IIb, whose article 3 gives jurisdiction to the courts of the Member State on whose territory are found the spouses’ habitual residence, their last habitual residence where one of them still lives there, or the respondent’s habitual residence. In plain terms, if you and your spouse live in France, the French JAF can hear the divorce, and so can the French court if you were last habitually resident here and one of you still is. Because the United Kingdom is now a third State, the old European rule that the court seised first blocks the others no longer operates between London and Paris: parallel proceedings are possible, and the spouse who files first in the friendlier forum often sets the financial tempo. British readers should therefore decide the forum deliberately, with advice on both sides, before sending any application.<\/p>\n Getting the right court is only half the battle; the court must then pick which country’s divorce law to apply. France takes part in the European enhanced cooperation on this question, Regulation (EU) No 1259\/2010, known as Rome III, and its article 4 provides for universal application, so that the designated law applies even where it is not the law of a participating Member State. That single sentence is what allows a French judge in Paris to apply English divorce law to a British couple if the Regulation points there, even though the United Kingdom never joined the scheme. Spouses may also choose the applicable law themselves in a written agreement signed by both, selecting the law of their habitual residence, their last habitual residence, either spouse’s nationality, or the forum, at the latest when the court is seised. A British couple living in France can therefore validly elect English law or French law in a written, dated agreement signed by both, at the latest when the court is seised. Without a choice, article 8 supplies a cascade starting with the law of the spouses’ habitual residence when the court is seised, then their last habitual residence, then their common nationality, and finally the law of the forum. For most British couples settled in France, that cascade lands on French law. A safety net exists in article 10, which imposes the law of the forum where the designated law provides for no divorce or for unequal access between the sexes.<\/p>\n Dividing the matrimonial property itself follows a different instrument, Regulation (EU) 2016\/1103 on matrimonial property regimes, and the prior question of who owns the French house under an English marriage is examined in depth in our companion guide on how English marriages own French houses under each matrimonial regime<\/a>. English couples married without a contract are usually under the English default of separation of goods, which surprises spouses who assumed everything bought during the marriage is shared. French judges liquidate the regime first and compensate second, so the ownership analysis always comes before the money analysis.<\/p>\n The central French money order is the prestation compensatoire, a lump-sum payment designed to offset, as far as possible, the disparity in living standards that the breakdown creates. Article 270 of the Civil Code<\/a> states: “Le divorce met fin au devoir de secours entre \u00e9poux. L’un des \u00e9poux peut \u00eatre tenu de verser \u00e0 l’autre une prestation destin\u00e9e \u00e0 compenser, autant qu’il est possible, la disparit\u00e9 que la rupture du mariage cr\u00e9e dans les conditions de vie respectives.” (translation: divorce ends the duty of support between spouses. One spouse may be ordered to pay the other a payment designed to compensate, as far as possible, the disparity that the breakdown creates in their respective living standards.) The duty of support, called devoir de secours, dies with the divorce, and the prestation takes over as a fixed, forfaitaire capital sum. Article 271<\/a> then lists the fixing criteria: “La prestation compensatoire est fix\u00e9e selon les besoins de l’\u00e9poux \u00e0 qui elle est vers\u00e9e et les ressources de l’autre en tenant compte de la situation au moment du divorce et de l’\u00e9volution de celle-ci dans un avenir pr\u00e9visible.” (translation: the payment is fixed according to the needs of the receiving spouse and the resources of the other, taking account of the situation at the time of the divorce and its foreseeable development.) The judge must weigh the length of the marriage, the spouses’ age and health, qualifications and careers, the career sacrifices made for children or for the other spouse’s career, the capital and income each will hold after the property is divided, existing and foreseeable rights, and crucially each spouse’s expected retirement position.<\/p>\n Two recent Court of Cassation rulings, France’s supreme civil court, show how strictly judges must apply those criteria, and British spouses with uneven careers should read them closely. On 10 December 2025, in appeal no. 24-13.557 (Cour de cassation, 1st civil chamber, 10 December 2025, no. 24-13.557<\/a>), the Court quashed an appeal judgment that had refused any payment because the disparity predated the marriage: “Il s’en d\u00e9duit, d’une part, que la diff\u00e9rence de situation professionnelle ou de r\u00e9mun\u00e9ration patrimoniale existant entre les \u00e9poux ant\u00e9rieurement au mariage ne peut \u00eatre un crit\u00e8re de refus d’octroi de la prestation compensatoire puisque celle-ci vise \u00e0 maintenir la parit\u00e9 qu’assurait l’union matrimoniale, et, d’autre part, que c’est au moment du prononc\u00e9 du divorce, qui met fin au devoir de secours, que le juge doit se placer pour la fixer.” (translation: it follows, first, that a pre-marital difference in professional or wealth situation cannot justify refusing the payment, since it aims to preserve the parity the marriage provided, and second, that the judge must assess it at the date the divorce is pronounced, which ends the duty of support.) A wealthy husband therefore cannot defeat the claim by showing his wife always earned less. On 5 March 2025, in appeal no. 22-24.122 (Cour de cassation, 1st civil chamber, 5 March 2025, no. 22-24.122<\/a>), the Court recalled for pension cases that the judge must consider “notamment, la situation respective de chacun des \u00e9poux en mati\u00e8re de pensions de retraite en ayant estim\u00e9, autant qu’il est possible, la diminution des droits \u00e0 retraite qui aura pu \u00eatre caus\u00e9e, pour l’\u00e9poux cr\u00e9ancier de la prestation compensatoire, par les cons\u00e9quences des choix professionnels faits par lui pendant la vie commune pour l’\u00e9ducation des enfants et du temps qu’il faudra encore y consacrer ou pour favoriser la carri\u00e8re de son conjoint au d\u00e9triment de la sienne” (translation: in particular, each spouse’s retirement position, estimating as far as possible the reduction in pension rights the claiming spouse may have suffered through career choices made during the marriage for the children’s education or to advance the other spouse’s career at his or her own expense). The British wife who paused work for children while her husband built a London career is exactly the profile this passage protects.<\/p>\n Children are governed by a simple starting principle in article 373-2 of the Civil Code<\/a>: “La s\u00e9paration des parents est sans incidence sur les r\u00e8gles de d\u00e9volution de l’exercice de l’autorit\u00e9 parentale.” (translation: the parents’ separation does not affect joint parental authority, called autorit\u00e9 parentale.) Both parents keep joint authority, the judge fixes the child’s habitual residence and contact arrangements, and any move that changes those arrangements triggers a duty to warn: “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.” (translation: any change of residence by one parent that alters parental authority arrangements must be notified to the other parent beforehand and in good time.) A British parent tempted to relocate with the children to England without warning should understand that this notice duty is enforceable and that the JAF reallocates travel costs and maintenance when a move is authorised.<\/p>\n The French divorce order settles parental authority, the children’s residence, each parent’s contact rights and the contribution to the children’s upkeep and education, but enforcement across borders needs planning from day one. Joint authority means the English school choices, medical decisions and passport applications for a child living in France still require both signatures in principle, and the parent who wants to move the children permanently to the United Kingdom must either obtain the other’s agreement or a JAF order varying residence. Judges decide by the child’s best interests, weighing schooling continuity, language, each parent’s availability and the child’s own ties in France. Maintenance for children is fixed as a monthly contribution indexed to the cost of living, and it can be revised if incomes change; arrears are recovered through the French public recovery service as well as through private enforcement by a commissaire de justice, the enforcement officer formerly called huissier.<\/p>\n The French home is dealt with in two stages: the divorce order says who can stay and on what terms, and a notary then carries out the property division. Where the house was bought during the marriage under a community regime, each spouse owns half its value and one can ask for preferential allocation, keeping the house against payment of a balancing sum called soulte. Where the couple married in England without a contract and own under separation of goods, each keeps what is in his or her name, subject to claims for joint funding and to the prestation compensatoire already described. In practice the notary draws up the liquidation statement, the mortgage lender must agree to release one borrower, and if neither spouse can buy out the other the property is sold and the price divided. British owners should also check the capital gains position of any sale ordered or triggered by the divorce with their tax adviser, because the family-law division and the tax bill are handled in separate procedures.<\/p>\n Pensions deserve their own evidence file, because France and England split retirement rights through completely different tools. A French judge cannot make an English-style pension sharing order against a British scheme; the French technique is to reflect the lost pension rights in the capital sum of the prestation compensatoire, using the article 271 criteria and the 5 March 2025 ruling quoted above. That means the claiming spouse must produce pension statements, state pension forecasts from both countries, employer scheme valuations and proof of career breaks for children, ideally before the first hearing. English private pensions, the French basic and complementary regimes, and civil service pensions all enter the comparison, and a spouse who cannot document the other side’s rights weakens his or her own claim. Where an English pension sharing order already exists from earlier English proceedings, its effectiveness against a French institution has to be examined separately, and double recovery must be avoided by disclosing every order made in either country.<\/p>\n Since Brexit, a French divorce is no longer automatically recognised in England under European rules; recognition now depends on English domestic law, principally section 46 of the Family Law Act 1986. Under that section, an overseas divorce obtained through court proceedings is recognised where the divorce is effective under the law of the country where it was obtained and where, when proceedings began, either party was habitually resident in, domiciled in, or a national of that country. The full section is published at legislation.gov.uk: Family Law Act 1986, section 46<\/a>. A French court divorce between spouses living in France therefore normally qualifies, because at least one party was habitually resident in France when proceedings began. The English procedure for money after a foreign divorce runs through financial remedy applications, and the official guidance on asking the English court to decide money and property is at GOV.UK: get the court to decide on money and property<\/a>. English judges retain a discretion to divide assets and share pensions that has no equivalent in the French fixed-criteria system, which is precisely why the choice of forum in Part I matters so much.<\/p>\nB. Which law governs the divorce and how French judges divide money, pensions and the home<\/h3>\n
II. After the divorce order: children, property, pensions and recognition across the Channel<\/h2>\n
A. Children, the French home and retirement rights: what the French order settles and what needs a second step<\/h3>\n
B. Will England recognise the French divorce, and how do you enforce or challenge an order<\/h3>\n