You separated in France, or you never married, and your child lives here with one of you while the other parent lives in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. The questions arrive all at once and each one feels urgent. Which court can fix where your child lives. Whether an English child arrangements order still counts for a French school, a French border officer or a French bailiff. What to do when contact stops, when the other parent announces a move back across the Channel with your child, or when your child does not come home after the holidays. Since 1 January 2021 the answer no longer runs through the European Union regulations that British and French families took for granted for seventeen years. Council Regulation (EC) No 2201\/2003, known as Brussels IIa, and its successor Regulation (EU) 2019\/1111, known as Brussels IIter, no longer bind the United Kingdom in relations with France. Two Hague Conventions now carry almost all the weight between the two countries, alongside French domestic law: the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, for the emergency return track, and the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on parental responsibility, for jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement. French substantive law then decides the content of custody in the strict sense, which France calls autorité parentale, parental authority, and its incidents, résidence de l’enfant, the child’s residence, and droit de visite et d’hébergement, contact and staying contact.<\/p>\n
This article is written for a British parent whose child is habitually resident in France, or who faces a French court about a child, after Brexit. It explains which French court to seise and which law it applies, how your child is heard, how an English order is recognised and enforced in France, and how the rapid return procedure works when a child is wrongfully taken to or kept in the other country. Every decisive proposition below is tied to a verifiable French text or a published decision of the Cour de cassation, the French supreme court for civil matters, quoted in its exact words. The point is practical throughout: what to file, where, with which proof, and how to challenge a refusal.<\/p>\n
The French judge for children of separated parents is the juge aux affaires familiales, usually shortened to JAF, the family judge sitting within the tribunal judiciaire, the ordinary civil court. International jurisdiction comes first and domestic venue second. Since Brexit, as between France and the United Kingdom, the 1996 Hague Convention allocates jurisdiction in parental responsibility matters principally by the child’s habitual residence, with accessory rules for divorce-linked cases, urgency and provisional measures. Inside France, the domestic venue rule that every British parent meets is Article 1070 of the Code of Civil Procedure<\/a>, which provides: "Le juge aux affaires familiales territorialement compétent est :" and then lists, in order, the judge of the family’s residence, and where the parents live apart, the judge of the residence of the parent with whom the minor children habitually live where parental authority is exercised jointly, or of the parent who exercises it alone. Competence is assessed on the day of the application. In plain terms, if your child habitually lives with their mother in Lyon and you live in London, the Lyon family judge is normally the right court, and that remains true even though you are British and even though an English court may once have decided something about the same child. Joint applications follow the parties’ choice between the two residences. Maintenance-only disputes allow the creditor’s court. These forks matter because seising the wrong tribunal judiciaire wastes months, and the other side can raise the venue point at the start.<\/p>\n Separation itself does not strip either parent of authority. Article 373-2 of the Civil Code<\/a> states: "La séparation des parents est sans incidence sur les règles de dévolution de l’exercice de l’autorité parentale." Each parent must maintain a personal relationship with the child and respect the child’s links with the other parent. Where parents exercised authority jointly before separation, joint exercise continues unless a judge decides otherwise for the child’s welfare. Sole exercise is the exception and needs reasons. The same article imposes a concrete duty that British parents often discover too late: "Tout changement de résidence de l’un des parents, dès lors qu’il modifie les modalités d’exercice de l’autorité parentale, doit faire l’objet d’une information préalable et en temps utile de l’autre parent. En cas de désaccord, le parent le plus diligent saisit le juge aux affaires familiales qui statue selon ce qu’exige l’intérêt de l’enfant." A planned move from Bordeaux to Bristol, or from London to Lille, that reshapes schooling, contact weekends and holiday blocks therefore requires prior notice in good time, and in case of disagreement the quicker parent seises the family judge, who decides by the child’s best interests, reallocates travel costs and adjusts maintenance. Moving first and informing afterwards is the classic route to losing the next hearing.<\/p>\n On residence, the judge has two lawful models and must choose. Article 373-2-9 of the Civil Code<\/a> provides: "En application des deux articles précédents, la résidence de l’enfant peut être fixée en alternance au domicile de chacun des parents ou au domicile de l’un d’eux." Shared residence, résidence en alternance, means the child lives alternately with each parent, often week about or on a bespoke pattern around schooling. Single residence means the child lives with one parent and the other holds contact. At the request of one parent, or where they disagree, the judge may order provisional alternation for a fixed period and then rule finally. Where residence goes to one parent, the judge rules on the other parent’s contact: "Lorsque la résidence de l’enfant est fixée au domicile de l’un des parents, le juge aux affaires familiales statue sur les modalités du droit de visite de l’autre parent." Where the child’s welfare so requires, and by a specially reasoned decision, contact can take place in a supervised contact centre, espace de rencontre, designated by the judge, and handover can be organised there or with a trusted third party or qualified body where direct handover endangers one side. For a Channel family this toolbox is essential: the judge can shape long holiday blocks in England, video contact between visits, supervised handovers at the airport or at a centre, and passport retention rules, rather than copying an every-other-weekend template that collapses across 500 miles of sea and rail.<\/p>\n The family judge also holds coercive powers that surprise British readers used to the English Children Act 1989 vocabulary of child arrangements orders, which combine where a child lives with whom a child spends time. Article 373-2-6 of the Civil Code<\/a> opens: "Le juge du tribunal judiciaire délégué aux affaires familiales règle les questions qui lui sont soumises dans le cadre du présent chapitre en veillant spécialement à la sauvegarde des intérêts des enfants mineurs." To guarantee continuity of links he may, among other steps, order a ban on the child leaving French territory without both parents’ permission, an interdiction de sortie du territoire, entered on the wanted-persons file by the public prosecutor. He may, even of his own motion, attach a penalty payment, astreinte, to his order to secure compliance, add it to another judge’s order or to a recorded parental agreement, and, where a parent deliberately and gravely or repeatedly obstructs a listed enforceable title, fine that parent up to 10,000 euros in a civil fine, amende civile. These are not theoretical levers. In Franco-British files the exit ban is routinely sought where there is a real risk of a unilateral departure to England during proceedings, alongside surrender of passports to the court registry, while the penalty payment gives teeth to a contact timetable that would otherwise be re-litigated every half term. Readers dealing with the divorce itself alongside the children should also read the companion guide on which court hears a Franco-British divorce after Brexit and which law it applies<\/a>, because divorce jurisdiction and parental responsibility jurisdiction obey related but distinct rules and the two cases do not always belong to the same court.<\/p>\n British parents sometimes expect a single decisive factor, such as the nationality of the child, the language spoken at home, or who owns the larger house. French law directs the judge to a bundle of factors centred on the child. Article 373-2-11 of the Civil Code<\/a> provides: "Lorsqu’il se prononce sur les modalités d’exercice de l’autorité parentale, le juge prend notamment en considération :" and then lists six items: the practice the parents previously followed or agreements they concluded; the feelings expressed by the minor child under the hearing rules; each parent’s aptitude to assume duties and respect the other’s rights; any expert assessments with regard to age; information from social enquiries where ordered; and physical or psychological pressure or violence by one parent against the other. No single item is conclusive on its own. Prior practice carries real weight because stability matters to children: who took the child to school in Nantes, who managed medical appointments, who arranged childcare during strikes and holidays. Aptitude to respect the other parent’s place is scrutinised closely in cross-Channel cases. A parent who offers a workable contact calendar, funds part of the Eurostar or ferry costs, keeps the child enrolled in both languages, and communicates through a shared diary will normally be viewed more favourably than a parent who withholds the passport, blocks video calls, or enrols the child in a new school abroad without discussion. Domestic abuse allegations are not a side issue; the sixth item makes them part of the custody test itself, and protective measures can run in parallel with the family case.<\/p>\n The child’s own voice has a defined procedural home. Article 388-1 of the Civil Code<\/a> provides: "Dans toute procédure le concernant, le mineur capable de discernement peut, sans préjudice des dispositions prévoyant son intervention ou son consentement, être entendu par le juge ou, lorsque son intérêt le commande, par la personne désignée par le juge à cet effet." The hearing is a right when the child requests it. Refusal where the child applies can rest only on lack of discernment or on the point that the proceedings do not concern the child. Where a party requests the hearing, the judge may also refuse where he finds it unnecessary to resolve the dispute or contrary to the child’s welfare. The hearing does not make the child a party, it can take place alone, with a lawyer or with a chosen person unless that choice offends the child’s interests, and the judge must ensure the child was informed of the right to be heard and assisted by counsel. The Cour de cassation polices refusals strictly. In a decision of 12 June 2025, pourvoi No 23-13.900, the First Civil Chamber recalled the governing formula: "Selon le premier de ces textes, dans toute procédure le concernant, le mineur capable de discernement peut être entendu par le juge." The appeal court there had rejected a mother’s request for her seven-year-old to be heard by referring only to age, calling the child far too young, without explaining in what way discernment was lacking. The Cour de cassation quashed for lack of legal basis under Articles 388-1 of the Civil Code and 338-4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The lesson for British parents is direct: do not assume a French judge will interview a young child, and do not assume he will refuse. File a reasoned written request linking discernment to concrete facts, such as school reports showing maturity, bilingual fluency, or a counsellor’s note, propose a lawyer or suitable person to accompany the child, and explain why the hearing is necessary to resolve residence or contact rather than a loyalty test. Equally, prepare your child never to be placed in a loyalty conflict, because a judge who senses coaching may discount the whole exercise. The official Cour de cassation text is published at Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 12 June 2025, No 23-13.900<\/a>.<\/p>\n Evidence wins these cases more than rhetoric. Build the file as a French judge reads it. Prove habitual residence with school certificates, mairie registrations, medical records, lease or title deeds, and tax notices. Prove prior practice with dated messages about school runs, homework, doctors and holidays, not with general statements about being the better parent. Prove availability with an employer letter on agile working, proximity to the school, and after-school arrangements. Where you allege risk, prove it with police reports, medical certificates, school alerts, or protection orders, and file certified translations of every English document by a traducteur assermenté, a sworn translator, because an untranslated WhatsApp printout in English carries little weight in a French court file. Ask for interim measures early where needed: provisional residence, interim contact, maintenance, passport retention and an exit ban can be ordered while the full enquiry runs. If the other parent announces a move to England, seise the judge before the ferry is booked, invoking the prior-notice duty and the child’s schooling continuity, and seek a prohibition on removal pending judgment plus a penalty payment. Waiting until after the move converts your strong prevention case into a harder return case under the 1980 Convention.<\/p>\n Many British parents arrive in France holding an English order: a child arrangements order under the Children Act 1989 saying the child lives with the mother and spends alternate weekends and half the holidays with the father, or a prohibited steps order barring removal from England and Wales, or a specific issue order on schooling or passports. Since Brexit that order does not circulate in France as a European enforcement order. It must be recognised and declared enforceable through the post-Brexit channel. The starting domestic proposition is modest. Article 509 of the Code of Civil Procedure<\/a> states: "Les jugements rendus par les tribunaux étrangers et les actes reçus par les officiers étrangers sont exécutoires sur le territoire de la République de la manière et dans les cas prévus par la loi." The manner and cases are supplied, for parental responsibility between France and the United Kingdom, chiefly by the 1996 Hague Convention, supplemented by French rules on exequatur, the judicial declaration that a foreign judgment is enforceable in France, and by the familiar conditions judge-made case law applies outside European instruments: indirect jurisdiction of the foreign court, no fraud, no manifest contrariety to French international public policy, and no conflicting French decision. The official service-public.fr guide on enforcement in France of a foreign civil judgment<\/a> walks through the exequatur petition, and the brexit.gouv.fr page on the government Brexit guide on court decisions confirms the end of automatic circulation for United Kingdom judgments. Read both before filing, because the registry will check your papers against exactly that framework.<\/p>\n In practice, file for exequatur before the tribunal judiciaire with an authenticated copy of the English order, proof it is final and enforceable in England, a sworn French translation, and evidence of due process such as service and the parties’ opportunity to be heard. Ask expressly for the enforcement formula for the precise obligations you need enforced in France: handover of the child on defined dates, holiday blocks, video contact, passport lodgement, school enrolment. A vague request for blanket enforcement invites adjournment. Expect the French judge to verify that the English court had an acceptable jurisdictional basis from the French viewpoint, usually the child’s habitual residence or the parents’ submission, that recognition would not manifestly offend French international public policy on the child’s welfare, and that no irreconcilable French judgment on the same child and cause already exists. Where the English order predates a French residence order, or where circumstances have materially changed, the French court may recognise the English decision yet adapt its modalities to French enforcement tools, adding a penalty payment, an exit ban, or supervised handover. Where the English order plainly contradicts the child’s current welfare as assessed under French conflicts rules, recognition can be refused, and the remedy is an appeal, not self-help. Keep the original English proceedings alive only on advice: parallel litigation in London and in the French habitual-residence court multiplies costs and risks contradictory reasoning, and the 1996 Convention’s lis pendens and recognition rules will still point back to habitual residence in most settled cases.<\/p>\n Two procedural traps deserve emphasis because British families fall into them every term. First, language and form. French registries reject bundles of English-only exhibits, screenshots without dates, and orders without evidence of enforceability. Every English order, Cafcass report, school letter from Kent, or GP note should arrive with a sworn translation and a short indexed schedule cross-referring each exhibit to a numbered paragraph of your submissions. Second, the parent who starts the French case should plead the 1996 Convention expressly: habitual residence of the child, basis for French jurisdiction, applicable law, and why recognition or non-recognition of the English order follows. Judges decide faster when the conflicts path is laid out. The Ministry of Justice page on international child abduction and cross-border contact<\/a> usefully describes the Central Authority route for contact and return files, and the Foreign Ministry guidance on abductions of children abroad<\/a> explains consular limits, which are real: consuls cannot order a return, they orient families towards the Central Authority and the courts. On the English side, the gov.uk guidance on international parental child abduction<\/a> and on looking after children on divorce or separation<\/a> sets out the mirror procedure when the child is in England, which helps French-based parents understand what the English court will expect if the file flips.<\/p>\n Wrongful removal and wrongful retention are the emergency of this field. A removal is wrongful where it breaches custody rights attributed under the law of the State where the child was habitually resident immediately before, and actually exercised at the time, within the meaning of the 1980 Convention. A retention is wrongful where a lawful stay, such as summer holidays with the father in Manchester, is unilaterally extended beyond the agreed return date to France. Do not wait to see whether the other parent relents. The 1980 Convention is built for speed: the left-behind parent applies to the Central Authority of his or her State, in France the bureau of the Ministry of Justice handling international family matters, which transmits to its counterpart; the French public prosecutor then seises the family judge for an immediate return order. The judge orders return to the State of habitual residence, not custody to one parent. Custody is decided afterwards by the courts of that State. Delay damages you twice: factually, because the child settles, and legally, because Article 12 allows refusal after one year where the child is now settled, and Article 13 raises three narrow defences, grave risk of physical or psychological harm or intolerable situation, the mature child’s objection, and non-exercise or consent.<\/p>\n French return case law since Brexit applies these defences strictly, which the Cour de cassation enforces. Two July 2025 rulings illustrate the discipline. In pourvoi No U 24-21.917, decided 2 July 2025, the First Civil Chamber addressed costs after a refused return. It opened its answer: "Vu l’article 26 de la Convention de La Haye du 25 octobre 1980 sur les aspects civils de l’enlèvement international d’enfants :" and held that charging the alleged abductor with the applicant’s costs under that article presupposes a decision ordering return or ruling on contact within the Convention; costs cannot be imposed under Article 26 where return was refused and no contact was ruled upon. The appeal court’s 8,000 euro award was quashed on that head. The full text is at Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 2 July 2025, No 24-21.917<\/a>. In pourvoi No U 24-22.101, also decided 2 July 2025, the Court reviewed a refusal grounded on Article 13(b), intolerable situation, where the appeal court had relied on the child’s stated wish for a stable life with her father in France, good school results and settled paternal family ties. The challenge tested whether such integration alone meets the grave-risk threshold. The published text is at Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 2 July 2025, No 24-22.101<\/a>. The consistent message is that return is the principle and refusal the narrowly policed exception: general unhappiness at moving back, better schooling in France, or a preference sincerely expressed but short of the Convention’s thresholds does not equal grave risk, while genuine exposure to harm, proved by specific evidence, can. A third ruling completes the toolkit on standing. On 16 February 2022, pourvoi No C 21-19.061, the Court held: "Aux termes de l’article 583 du code de procédure civile, est recevable à former tierce opposition toute personne qui y a intérêt, à la condition qu’elle n’ait été ni partie ni représentée au jugement qu’elle attaque." A left-behind father who had applied through his Central Authority, leading the French prosecutor to seise the court, had been neither called nor represented and could therefore bring tierce opposition against the return ruling. Text at Cour de cassation, First Civil Chamber, 16 February 2022, No 21-19.061<\/a>. For British parents this means: intervene early in your own name alongside the prosecutor’s action, or keep a tierce-opposition route if you were absent, and calendar every time limit from service of the decision.<\/p>\n Alongside the civil return track, French criminal law punishes contact sabotage. Article 227-5 of the Criminal Code<\/a> provides: "Le fait de refuser indûment de représenter un enfant mineur à la personne qui a le droit de le réclamer est puni d’un an d’emprisonnement et de 15 000 euros d’amende." Non-representation, non-représentation d’enfant, covers refusing to hand the child back at the end of contact, hiding the child, or organising disappearance before handover. Complaints go to the police or gendarmerie with the enforceable order, the handover messages, and proof of presence at the agreed place and time. Prosecutors do prosecute, and a criminal file often unlocks enforcement faster than a fifth civil motion. Use it proportionately and truthfully: a late Eurostar is not a refusal, a pattern of missed handovers with blocking messages is. Every refusal must be documented the same day with a constat where useful, a bailiff’s report, commissaire de justice, recording an empty meeting point, plus transport tickets and timestamped messages proposing new dates. Judges and prosecutors distinguish precise binders from angry narratives, and so should you.<\/p>\n Act in the right order in the first seventy-two hours. First, secure proof of habitual residence and of the breached right: the enforceable French or English order with translation, the written holiday agreement, the return tickets, the messages announcing non-return. Second, contact the Central Authority route and a lawyer in the State where the child now is, because parallel applications in both States without coordination waste the six-week momentum the Convention expects. Third, seek interim protection in France where still useful: exit ban, passport lodgement, provisional contact, penalty payment. Fourth, file the criminal complaint for non-representation where the facts support it. Fifth, diary the appeal and opposition periods from the first return ruling, because return litigation moves through first instance, appeal and cassation at unusual speed and a missed week can become a settled year. Families based in Paris and the Île-de-France will normally pass through the Paris tribunal judiciaire family chamber and the Paris prosecutor’s office for these filings, with supervised contact centres across the region for interim handovers; the legal tests are national, only the counters differ, so check the court’s current filing hours and translation requirements before travelling.<\/p>\n After Brexit, a British parent in France is not left without tools, but the tools have changed address. Habitual residence in France normally gives the French family judge jurisdiction, French venue follows Article 1070<\/a>, and French substance chooses between alternate and single residence under Article 373-2-9<\/a> by the multi-factor test of Article 373-2-11<\/a>, with the child’s voice heard under Article 388-1<\/a> as strictly policed in No 23-13.900<\/a>, coercive protection available under Article 373-2-6<\/a>, and joint authority preserved through separation by Article 373-2<\/a>. An English order no longer walks into France; it is recognised and enforced through Article 509<\/a> and the 1996 Hague Convention, with sworn translations and a precise enforcement request. A wrongful removal or retention triggers the 1980 Convention’s rapid return action, where costs follow No 24-21.917<\/a>, defences stay narrow as tested in No 24-22.101<\/a>, absent applicants keep standing through No 21-19.061<\/a>, and deliberate refusal risks Article 227-5<\/a>. File early, translate everything, plead the Convention expressly, document each handover, and challenge each refusal within its time limit.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" British parent in France after Brexit? Which court fixes residence and contact, how an English order is enforced, and how the Hague return procedure works.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":251031309,"featured_media":16501,"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-2143927","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-british-desk","category-decryptage"],"yoast_head":"\nB. Which Criteria the French Judge Weighs and How Your Child Is Heard<\/h3>\n
II. How to Enforce an English Order in France and Act in an Emergency After Brexit<\/h2>\n
A. Making an English Custody or Contact Order Work Before the French Courts<\/h3>\n
B. Getting Your Child Back Quickly if Taken Across the Channel and Punishing Refusal<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n