Can I Move Away with my Children After Separation?

Article Summary

• Moving within England and Wales does not automatically require court permission, however, you may need the other parents’ written consent (and any other party with parental responsibility) depending on the distance. If the move would disrupt an existing Child Arrangements Order or require a school change, you need the other parent’s written consent (and any other party with parental responsibility) or a court order first.
• It is crucial to consider how a move with children separation can affect existing arrangements and relationships.
• Taking a child abroad permanently without the written consent of everyone with parental responsibility, or without a court order, is a criminal offence under the Child Abduction Act 1984, carrying a sentence of up to seven years’ imprisonment.
• In any relocation application, the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration under section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989. There is no presumption in favour of either parent.
• The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction allows a parent to apply for the return of a child wrongfully removed to a signatory country. Where the destination country has not signed the Convention, return of the child becomes significantly harder.
• Courts take a dim view of parents who relocate without consent and then seek retrospective approval. Early legal advice, before any move is made, is strongly advisable.

Whether you can move away with your children after separation turns on where you want to go and what child arrangements are currently in place between you and the other parent. A move from Birmingham to Bristol raises different legal questions than a move from Birmingham to Brisbane, and the consequences of getting either wrong can be serious for everyone and negatively impact your child’s wellbeing. Therefore, it is crucial to seek legal advice from an experienced Family Law Solicitor before you make any decisions.

You may have legitimate reasons for moving. For example, you want to move closer to your family and friends elsewhere in the country, take up new employment, or simply rebuild your life in a different place. The law in England and Wales does not prevent a parent from moving; however, it requires, in certain circumstances, that the move be agreed to or authorised before it occurs.

Purcell Solicitors’ family team regularly advises on both domestic and international cases. Below is a brief guide to the law around moving away with your children after you separate or divorce.

The law around relocating with your children after separation or divorce

The starting point is section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989, which provides that the welfare of the child is the court’s paramount consideration whenever a question arises about a child’s upbringing. That principle applies to every relocation dispute, however far or however local the proposed move may be.

Where a Child Arrangements Order specifying with whom the child lives is already in force, section 13 of the Children Act 1989 provides that no person may remove the child from the United Kingdom without the written consent of everyone with parental responsibility, or the court’s permission. A narrow exception exists: the parent with whom the child lives (ie. has a ‘lives with order’) under the order may take the child abroad for up to one month without consent, provided the trip does not breach any other term of the order.

For international moves, the Child Abduction Act 1984, section 1 provides that a person connected with a child under 16 commits an offence by taking or sending that child out of the United Kingdom without the appropriate consent. The  sentence is up to seven years’ imprisonment. Prosecutions do occur, and the offence can be committed even where the parent acting believes the move is in the child’s interests.

Moving Within England and Wales

A local move that leaves the existing school run and contact pattern/living arrangement with the other parent intact and no disruption is unlikely to require any formal process. A move from Cardiff to Newcastle is a different matter: contact arrangements would change substantially, and the other parent may well object. In those circumstances, the moving parent should seek the other parent’s written consent before proceeding. If consent is refused, the correct course is to apply to the Family Court for a Specific Issue Order under section 8 of the Children Act 1989. The parent opposing the move can apply for a Prohibited Steps Order to prevent relocation pending a final hearing.

There is also a practical point that catches some parents off guard. Changing a child’s school requires the consent of all those with parental responsibility. A parent who relocates unilaterally and attempts to enrol their child in a new school without the other parent’s agreement is likely to find the admission process becomes the flashpoint for formal proceedings.

The court’s approach to domestic relocation was confirmed in Re F (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 1428, where Lord Justice Wilson held that section 1(1) welfare paramountcy governs internal relocation cases in exactly the same way as international ones, with no starting presumption in favour of either parent. K v K (Relocation: Shared Care Arrangement) [2011] EWCA Civ 793 put the matter even more plainly. Lord Justice Thorpe described the child’s welfare as “the only authentic principle” running through the entire line of relocation authorities, adding that there is no presumption that a primary carer’s reasonable relocation plans will be approved unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary. Both cases remain the foundation for deciding domestic relocation applications. The court continues to examine relocation proposals with close attention to evidence.  In the recent case of Re K (Internal Relocation) [2025] EWFC 285 (B) a mother made an application for permission to move a modest distance with her 3 year old son to north west England from Nottingham and the application was refused with the Judge describing the mother’s expectations as “idealistic”.

Moving Abroad with your Child

International relocation carries greater legal complexity and higher stakes. A parent who removes a child from the UK without permission commits a criminal offence, faces urgent return proceedings, and risks long-term damage to their relationship with both the child and the courts.

Before any application is made, the moving parent must seek the written agreement of every other person with parental responsibility. If agreement is reached, it should be reflected in a Consent Order, so that the revised arrangements for the other parent’s time with the children are enforceable if problems arise later. If agreement cannot be reached, an application for a Specific Issue Order or leave to remove under section 13 of the Children Act 1989 is the only lawful route forward.

The leading authority on international relocation is Re F (A Child) (International Relocation Cases) [2015] EWCA Civ 882. The Court of Appeal held that excessive reliance on the earlier checklist in Payne v Payne [2001] EWCA Civ 166 constitutes an error of law. Both parents’ proposals must be analysed side by side through a holistic welfare assessment, and the fact that a relocation plan is genuine and well-considered does not mean it will be approved. The father’s appeal was allowed, and the matter remitted for a full rehearing on that basis.

Courts considering an international relocation application look closely at: the child’s current and proposed schooling; housing in the destination country; the applying parent’s employment and finances; the support network available to the child after the move; a funded and realistic contact plan for the other parent, including who pays for travel; and the impact on the child’s existing relationships. A vague proposal will not do. Courts that refuse permission frequently point to a lack of concrete planning as the deciding factor.  In the recent case of Re O (Domestic Abuse: International Relocation) [2025] EWCA Civ 888 the mother sought to relocate to the UAE with her two children.  There had been serious findings of domestic abuse and the Court accepted that remaining in England exposed the mother and children to ongoing emotional harm and instability.  The Court granted permission for the mother and two children to relocate.  Whilst the father appealed this decision, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court judge’s decision and dismissed the father’s appeal so mother and the children were able to relocate to a non-Hague Convention county as mother had provided significant evidence and researched thoroughly providing a detailed plan for her and the children.

Recent case law reaffirms that relocation cases, whether internal or external (international), demand careful evidence which is often complex and can ultimately make the difference in the final decision which can have a significant impact on a child’s future.

The Hague Convention and Wrongful Removal

The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction operates on the principle that disputes about where a child should live ought to be resolved by the courts of the country where the child was habitually resident before the removal, not by the courts of the country to which they have been taken. Where a child has already been removed without consent, the Convention provides a summary procedure for securing their return.

A parent whose child has been wrongfully removed to a Convention signatory state can apply to the Central Authority in England, the International Child Abduction and Contact Unit for return proceedings. Signatory states are required to act within six weeks. The defences available to the removing parent are deliberately narrow: they include grave risk of physical or psychological harm to the child under Article 13(b), the child’s own objections where they have reached sufficient age and maturity, and, if proceedings are not started within a year, evidence of settled life in the new country. Courts apply all three defences restrictively.

Where the destination is a country that has not signed the Convention, or one whose accession the UK has not formally accepted, matters can become much more complicated. Countries including Afghanistan, the UAE, Egypt, and India are examples of where. the parent left behind has no automatic right to a summary return hearing. They must pursue proceedings under the foreign country’s own domestic law, frequently at considerable expense and with no guarantee of a result. Purcell Solicitors’  family team can advise on urgent steps to take if a removal to a non-Hague country is feared.

A parent concerned about unlawful removal has several immediate options: applying for a Prohibited Steps Order, seeking a port alert from the police (which remains active for 28 days and creates time to obtain a court order), or applying to His Majesty’s Passport Office to prevent a new British passport being issued to the child without their consent. All of these can be applied for without giving the other parent advance notice, where urgency requires it.

Practical Steps for Parents

Whether you want to move or fear being the parent left behind, in our experience, the courts respond better to parents who have approached the situation thoughtfully and communicated in good faith. Parents who move first and seek approval afterwards face an uphill battle. The cases show it repeatedly.

For parents planning to relocate, the following steps reflect what courts expect and what good legal practice requires:

• Raise the proposal with the other parent as early as possible, in writing, and give them a reasonable opportunity to respond. Silence does not constitute consent.
• Explore non-court dispute resolution before issuing proceedings. Mediation is ordinarily required before a court application can be made, and a skilled mediator can help both parents centre the discussion on the child rather than on their own positions.
• If the proposed move is international, prepare a detailed relocation plan covering schooling, accommodation, the financial basis for the move, your support network in the destination country, and a concrete proposal for the other parent’s contact with the child, specifying who will meet the cost of travel.
• Do not book flights, give notice on a tenancy, or tell the children about the move until you have written consent or a court order. Acting prematurely creates pressure, accelerates conflict, and courts treat it as evidence of presuming permission will be granted and is not favoured by the Courts and could impact on the decision they ultimately make.
• If consent is withheld and you believe the move is in the child’s best interests, apply to the court for a Specific Issue Order. Do not go without one.
• If you are the parent opposing a move, apply for a Prohibited Steps Order without delay. Delay affects the court’s view of your position and, in international cases, can complicate or prevent the child’s return.

Relocation cases are among the most fact-sensitive in family law. The outcome depends on the child’s age, their relationship with each parent, the realism of the contact proposals after any move, and the court’s assessment of each parent’s motivation. A case that looks straightforward at the outset can quickly become contested. Specialist legal advice, obtained before any step is taken, makes a material difference and protects the welfare of any children involved.

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are considering relocating with your children, or are concerned that the other parent may do so, you should take specialist legal advice based on the facts of your case. Purcell Solicitors is a specialist family law firm with extensive experience in child relocation and child abduction cases, both within the UK and internationally.

Thinking About Divorce? How courts decide divorce settlements in 2026

Article Summary

1. The Supreme Court has clarified pre-marital wealth rules. In Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26, the Supreme Court ruled that assets brought into a marriage do not automatically become shared matrimonial property. The sharing principle applies only to wealth built during the marriage. This landmark decision means couples with significant pre-marital assets should take specialist advice and document their intentions clearly in a pre-nuptial agreement.
2. Equal sharing remains the starting point in long marriages. The High Court case of ED v AP [2025] EWFC 399 involved a 28-year marriage with assets exceeding £10 million. The wife was awarded the family home plus a substantial lump sum, illustrating that courts will divide wealth accumulated during the marriage on a broadly equal basis, with particular weight given to housing needs and the contributions of a homemaking spouse.
3. Major government reform is on the way. In November 2025, the government announced its most significant consultation on family law since the 1970s. Issues under review include legally binding pre-nuptial agreements, rights for cohabiting couples, and protection for domestic abuse victims in financial proceedings. Legislation could follow as early as 2027 or 2028.
4. The family courts are under severe strain. Average waiting times from application to final order reached 74 weeks in early 2025. Financial remedy applications rose 66% in 2024, and sitting days are being cut due to a shortage of judges. Couples face prolonged uncertainty as the system struggles to keep pace with demand.
5. A two-tier justice system is emerging. Wealthier couples are increasingly bypassing the public courts in favour of private Financial Dispute Resolution hearings and arbitration, where a specialist (often a senior barrister or retired judge) provides a faster resolution for a fee. Legal experts warn this creates a system in which speed and flexibility are available only to those who can afford them.

The law moves slowly. For decades, couples in England and Wales have managed divorce financial settlements with the same basic rulebook, a dusty tome from 1973, in the form of the Matrimonial Causes Act, that predates smartphones, the internet, and modern ideas about partnership. Goodness, in the UK at least, second-wave feminism was just kicking off!

However, in 2025, family law began to shift. The Supreme Court handed down a judgment that rewrote the rules on pre-marital wealth. A High Court judge made an award that showed how far equality has come. The government announced reforms that could fundamentally change cohabitation law. And behind it all, the court system itself started to buckle, pushing couples toward private solutions that only the wealthy can afford.

This is the story of a legal system in transition, told through the cases that define it and the policies that will shape it for years to come.

How courts decide divorce settlements in 2026

The £77 Million Question

Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26

When the Standish family arranged their finances, they had no idea they were setting up a legal test case that would echo through every divorce court in the land. The husband had transferred £77 million into trusts before marriage, a move designed for tax planning rather than matrimonial sharing. Years later, when the marriage ended, his wife argued that this wealth had become part of their shared life.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

In July 2025, the justices delivered a judgment that brought welcome clarity to a murky area of law. They ruled that assets brought into marriage do not automatically become shared property. The sharing principle, they explained, applies only to what a couple builds together. Pre-marital wealth remains separate unless there is clear evidence that both parties intended to treat it as joint.

Lord Justice Moylan explained:

In my view, it is clearly established that, in the application of the sharing principle, the source of an asset is the critical factor and not title. It can be seen from the cases cited above that title does not feature as a significant factor in contrast to the “source” of an asset which features prominently in explaining the court’s approach to the application of the sharing principle and, in particular, the different approach to an asset which is the product of the parties’ endeavours, namely matrimonial property, and property which is not. As submitted by Mr Bishop, the sharing principle is founded or based on each party, in accordance with the objectives of fairness, equality and non-discrimination, being entitled to an equal share of their matrimonial property, namely the “fruits of the partnership” or the wealth built up by the parties’ endeavours during the marriage.

Following the decision in Standish, Family Law Solicitors must advise clients bringing independent wealth into a marriage to explicitly document their intentions on whether the assets should be viewed as matrimonial property in the Pre-Nuptial Agreement. And financially weaker spouses looking to claim 50% or more of non-matrimonial property will need to be given a realistic picture of the portion they are likely to be able to claim.

A Home and £3.4 Million

While the Supreme Court clarified the rules on old money, the High Court showed how the system treats wealth accumulated during marriage. The case of ED v AP  [2025] EWFC 399 involved a couple who had spent 28 years together, raising four children and building assets worth over £10 million.

His Honour Judge Edward Hess faced a familiar question: how do you divide a life? His answer reflected modern expectations of equality. He awarded the wife the family home, valued at nearly £7 million, plus a lump sum of £3.4 million. He gave her half of the future payments from two funds and a third from a third fund, reasoning that this portion reflected work done before and after separation. He ordered her to take responsibility for 35% of the loans secured against the family home.

The judgment mattered not for its novelty but for its scale. It showed that in long marriages, the starting point remains equal sharing. It demonstrated that courts will make complex orders dividing future assets to achieve fairness. And it confirmed that housing needs carry particular weight, especially for the partner who made the home their domain.

The Government Wakes Up

On 10 November 2025, Baroness Levitt KC stood in Parliament and announced something Family Law Solicitors had waited years to hear. The government would launch a comprehensive consultation on family law reform, the most significant since the 1970s.

The consultation will tackle questions that have troubled judges and couples for decades. Should pre-nuptial agreements be legally binding? How should the law treat cohabiting couples, who currently have no automatic rights? How can the system better protect victims of domestic abuse in financial proceedings? And how can we reduce the uncertainty and conflict that the current discretionary framework creates?

It seems the British Government has finally recognised that modern families take on many forms. The consultation, expected early 2026, could lead to legislation by 2027 or 2028. For the 3.6 million cohabiting couples in England and Wales, this represents a glimmer of hope after years of legal limbo.

Crisis in the Family Court

Behind the high-profile cases and policy announcements, a quieter catastrophe has been unfolding. The family courts are running out of time. In December 2025, Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division, announced that sitting days would be reduced. The reason is simple: there are not enough judges to go round.

The statistics tell a stark story. In the first quarter of 2025, couples waited an average of 74 weeks from application to final order. Financial remedy applications rose 66% in 2024, the highest level since the 2008 financial crisis. The courts processed 11,868 applications in the third quarter of 2024 alone, a 7% increase on the previous year.

The result is a system that cannot keep pace with demand. Hearing dates are moved at short notice. Trials are delayed by months. Couples who cannot afford alternatives find themselves in limbo, their lives on hold while they wait for a judge to become available.

The result is the beginning of the end of equal access to justice. Wealthy couples are increasingly ‘by-passing’ the public court in favour of private Financial Dispute Resolution hearings and arbitration. In these processes, parties pay an independent specialist, often a senior barrister or retired judge, to deliver a neutral evaluation or a binding decision, thereby avoiding the extensive public court backlogs.

Legal experts and practitioners have explicitly warned of a ‘two-tier’ system emerging. Those with the financial means can ‘buy’ a faster, more flexible resolution, while those without means must wait for the overstretched public courts to deal with their case.

If you want to discuss any points made in this month’s post, you can email me at mandi@purcellsolicitors.co.uk

Please note that this article does not constitute legal advice.

Author Biography

Mandi Austin is a Director and Family Law Solicitor at Purcell Solicitors, with over 25 years of specialist experience in family law.​

She advises on the full spectrum of family law issues, including divorce, complex financial settlements, children matters, pre‑ and post‑nuptial agreements, and non‑legal aid domestic abuse cases. Mandi originally chose law after a lecturer identified her potential and encouraged her to pursue a law degree, and she has focused on family work ever since.​

Mandi is a trained Collaborative Lawyer and has extensive experience representing clients in family court proceedings as well as in out‑of‑court negotiations. She is ranked Band 2 for Family/Matrimonial in the Chambers & Partners UK Guide 2026, where she is praised as “meticulous and very thorough with her preparation,” “incredibly competent,” and “a delight to work with” who “provides spot‑on advice”.