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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll