header-logo header-logo

02 September 2009 / Georgina Vallance-webb
Categories: Opinion , Family
printer mail-detail

Holiday hiatus

web-article_4

How far can the courts allay fears about separated parents absconding with children in the holiday season? Georgina Vallance-Webb reports

Holidays can be an emotive issue for parents with broken relationships. The necessity to obtain permission from the other parent for a day trip to Calais, a fortnight in the Maldives or a family wedding in Hawaii is not always known or appreciated.

Particularly in families with international connections, it is not unusual for there to be anxiety that the other parent’s ostensible plans to take a child away on holiday are truly plans to abscond abroad permanently without returning.

However, the courts have proved themselves practical, ingenious and robust in devising protective orders to prevent non-return and put the remaining parent’s mind at rest.

Strictly speaking, under s 13(1)(b) Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) a person with a residence order can take a child abroad for up to a month without the written consent of the other parent.

Nevertheless, good practice and responsible parenting dictate that agreement be obtained, whatever orders are in existence.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll