Court orders mother to pay compensation to the father for withdrawing her travel consent two days before father and child would departure
A father had planned a holiday to Cape Verde with his daughter and new partner. The mother initially gave consent but withdrew it two days before departure, preventing the trip. The court ruled that the mother had acted unreasonable by using her consent as a leverage for her own travel plans and ordered her to compensate the father and his new girlfriend for their financial loss.
Court of Rotterdam, 14 februari 2025, ECLI:NL:RBOT:2025:1696
Facts
The parents have a 7-year-old daughter and are in the process of formally ending their partnership. The father now has a new partner.
The father had planned a two-week trip to Cape Verde during the Christmas holiday, with his partner and daughter. Although the mother initially agreed, she withdrew her consent two days before departure and alerted military police to prevent her daughter from leaving the country. As a result, the father and his partner were stopped at Schiphol Airport and unable to travel.
Key facts in this case
– In September 2023, the father informed the mother of his travel plans to Cape Verde. She agreed via WhatsApp.
– On November 13, 2023, the mother signed a blank travel consent form for the trip. A few days later, the father sent her a photo of the completed version.
– On December 18, 2023, the mother requested the father’s consent for her own trips, together with their child: one to Italy in January 2024 and another to Tunisia in February 2024.
– The father did not immediately approve. For the Italy trip, he asked the mother to obtain permission from the school, as their daughter would miss a school day. He denied permission for the Tunisia trip due to safety concerns and the mother’s relationship with a Tunisian man, which is considered illegal under Tunisian law.
– On December 24, 2023, the mother officially withdrew her consent for the father’s Cape Verde trip via email. She stated that she would only approve the trip if the father granted unconditional consent for her planned trips to Italy, Tunisia and Portugal. Her lawyer confirmed this the same day, demanding a response from the father by noon the following day.
– The father did not grant permission, and the mother subsequently informed the authorities that she had not consented to her daughter’s trip abroad.
Request father and partner
The father and his partner demanded compensation from the mother for the costs incurred, totalling € 4.905,57.
Request mother
The mother argued that she had the right to withdraw her consent, claiming that the father had undermined her parental authority and that she had legitimate safety concerns. She also cited the risk of malaria in Cape Verde as an additional reason for her withdrawal.
She counterclaimed that the father should compensate her € 1.901,03 for the costs of the cancelled trip to Tunisia and a replacement holiday to Portugal.
Father’s response
The father argued that his refusal to approve the Tunisia trip was justified due to safety concerns. He also pointed out that the mother could have sought substitute consent from the court but chose not to.
Court’s decision request father
The court ruled that the mother must compensate the father and his partner for their vacation costs. By withdrawing her consent at the last minute, she had prioritized her own interests over those of the father and their daughter. She acted contrary to social due diligence and thus acted unlawfully towards the man.
The court determined that malaria concerns were not the real reason for the withdrawal. Emails and correspondence from the mother and her lawyer, along with the fact that she had previously given consent for the trip, indicated that she had used her consent as leverage to gain approval for her own travels. The mother deliberately blocked the father’s vacation.
The mother’s decision to revoke consent and alert the authorities was intentional and directly caused financial loss for the father. This also appliedd to the damages incurred by the father’s partner, who was likewise prevented from traveling. Given the short notice, the father had no opportunity to seek court approval. The mother was therefore ordered to compensate the full amount of € 4.905,57 covering flights, accommodation, and taxi costs.
Court’s decision request mother
The court dismissed the mother’s counterclaim. It ruled that the father’s refusal to approve the Tunisia trip was reasonable due to safety concerns. Furthermore, the mother had prematurely booked her trip without the father’s consent and still had sufficient time to request substitute consent form the court but chose not to.
Notes
This was a decision from the civil court, not the family court.
Unfortunately, it often happens that parents use the consent requirement for a holiday with the child to negotiate for example their own holiday or care arrangements. When there is no reasonable argument in itself to refuse consent, this is very unreasonable and frustrating.
This may seem like a fair ruling, allowing ex-partners to get justice if their ex has acted unlawfully.
However, the court decided not to order the wife to pay the husband’s legal costs because they were in a relationship (section 237 of the Code of Civil Procedure). This means that given the usually relatively small cost of a holiday, most parents will not easily choose to incur legal costs to claim damages.