A father relocated with his children to a city 123 km away from their original home, without the mother\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
Facts<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n Only after relocating, the father requested court approval for the relocation. In February 2024, the court granted his request.<\/p>\n Mother\u2019s request<\/strong> Father\u2019s reaction<\/strong> Circumstances<\/strong> Child Care and Protection Board and social workers<\/strong> They also saw some possible negative effects that would occur if the father would be ordered to relocate back, with the children:
\nThe 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\u2019s original school.<\/p>\n
\nThe 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\u2019s 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 \u20ac 10.000,00 for each day the father fails to comply.<\/p>\n
\nThe 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.<\/p>\n
\nThere were a few circumstance that did not help the father\u2019s case:
\n– 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.
\n– 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.
\n– Despite the father\u2019s 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.
\n– The treatment of the children had been interrupted and no new treatment had started, despite the supervision by social workers.
\n– 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.<\/p>\n
\nBoth 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\u2019s relationship with their mother.<\/p>\n
\n– It would cause stress
\n– Financial problems of the father and his new partner due to having to relocate back would cause stress
\n– 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.<\/p>\n