A father relocated with his children to a city 123 km away from their original home, without the mother’s consent or court approval. Although the court later granted him permission for the move, the court of appeal annulled this decision and ruled that a parent who violates agreements in this manner should not be rewarded. Therefore the father must relocate back with the children to a place of residence within a 10 km radius of their original school.

Facts
The father and mother have two children together, both teenagers. The parents share joint parental authority. In 2021, they signed a parenting plan establishing a co-parenting arrangement. Both parents also agreed to continue living within a 10 km radius of the children’s original school.

However, since September 2022 the oldest child lives with his father and does not have any contact with the mother. The youngest child lives with his father since May 2023 and does not have any contact since July 2023. December 2023, the children were placed under supervision of social workers for one year.

Only after relocating, the father requested court approval for the relocation. In February 2024, the court granted his request.

Mother’s request
The mother argued that the father had violated the parenting plan by moving without her consent, consultation, or prior court approval. Therefore the mother appealed, requesting the court of appeal to annul the lower court’s decision and to order that the father must return with the children to a place of residence within a 10 km radius of their original place of residence or the original school within one month or, at the latest, by the start of the new school year. The mother also asks the court of appeal to impose a penalty of € 10.000,00 for each day the father fails to comply.

Father’s reaction
The father claimed that, after their separation, the mother became overly controlling, which he and the children found suffocating. Following a series of negative incidents involving the mother, the children eventually moved in with him and no longer wished to have contact with her. This situation led to the relocation. The children are doing well in their current place of residence where they want to continue living, according to the father.

Circumstances
There were a few circumstance that did not help the father’s case:
– The children were aware of the fact that the father needed permission for the relocation, and did not get that permission. It is a burden for children to keep secrets like that.
– The children heard several times that the behaviour of the mother was one of the reasons for the relocation. This reinforces in them the negative image of mother.
– Despite the father’s promise that the children would not have to change school after the relocation, the children first mist school for some time and then they did change school.
– The treatment of the children had been interrupted and no new treatment had started, despite the supervision by social workers.
– The father did not do anything to actively stimulate contact between the children and the mother en did nothing to mitigate or compensate for the consequences for the mother.

Child Care and Protection Board and social workers
Both the Child Care and Protection Board and the Child Protection recommended that the children should remain in their new place of residence with their father, emphasizing the need for a stable and calm environment. They both believe that maintaining this stability would ultimately improve the children’s relationship with their mother.

They also saw some possible negative effects that would occur if the father would be ordered to relocate back, with the children:
– It would cause stress
– Financial problems of the father and his new partner due to having to relocate back would cause stress
– A high risk that the children and/or father and his partner will blame the mother for getting permission for the relocation, which would have a negative effect on restoring contact with the mother.

Court of appeal’s decision
The court of appeal states that the father failed to prove that this relocation was necessary, as he and his new partner had no social or economic connection to the new location. The court of appeal states that the father had not properly thought through and prepared for the move.

The court of appeal states that it is in the mother’s best interest for the children to reside near their original place of residence, within the agreed-upon 10 km radius of their original school. This would create a more favourable environment for re-establishing contact between the children and their mother.

The court of appeal concluded that the mother’s interests in restoring her relationship with the children outweighed the father’s interests to remain in the new place of residence.

Furthermore, there was no evidence suggesting that the children had become deeply rooted in their new environment.

No reward for breaking the rules
In weighing the interests of the mother, the father and the children, the court took into account that a parent who breaks the rules should not be rewarded for doing so.

Fine
Despite the recommendations of the child welfare authorities, the court of appeal states that rewarding a parent for violating established agreements is unjustifiable. Consequently, the court of appeal ordered the father to relocate back within a 10 km radius of the original school of the children by August 1, 2025. If he fails to comply, he will incur a daily fine of € 1.000,00, up to a maximum of € 150.000,00.

 

Appeal Court of Arnhem-Leeuwarden, 7 January 2025 ECLI:NL:GHARL:2025:19