A father relocated with the children without the mother’s consent. The mother requested the court to order him to return within two months. However, the court ultimately ruled that, despite the father’s failure to seek prior consent, his relocation was justified due to urgent housing needs. Since the existing care arrangement continued without significant disruption, the court saw no reason to reverse the relocation.

Court of The Hague, 19 November 2024, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2024:19390

Facts
The parents have two children, aged 11 and 10, and share joint parental authority. After the breakup, a structured care arrangement was established in May 2019 to ensure both parents had regular time with the children as co-parents. In 2024, the father relocated with both children, his new partner, and her four children to a new place of residence without seeking the mother’s consent or obtaining court approval.

Mother’s request
The mother did not agree with the relocation and asked the court to order the father to return to the original place of residence within two months. Additionally, she requested modifications to the care arrangement if her primary request was denied. She argued that the relocation created logistical challenges, particularly concerning the children’s travel to and from school. Additionally, the eldest child expressed distress about losing contact with friends and uncertainty about her belongings.

Father’s reaction
The father acknowledged that he had failed to consult the mother but claimed he had no other viable option. He cited the following reasons:
– His new partner had already given up her previous home, intending to move in with him. However, the housing corporation later informed them that she could not register at his address, forcing them to find new housing on short notice. Given the current housing market, their options were extremely limited, especially since they needed a home suitable for him, his new partner, and their six children.
– Due to his financial situation, the father was unable to rent private housing.
– He believed he was allowed to relocate within a 25 km radius of the original place of residence without requiring the mother’s prior consent.
– He made every effort to find a home in the original place of residence, but this proved to be impossible.
– When he was offered a sufficiently large home, he acted quickly, as the housing corporation had informed him that the property would otherwise no longer be available.
– Not much has changed for the children, except that their travel time is slightly longer.

Court’s decision
The court denied the mother’s request to order the father to move back to his previous place of residence. While it acknowledged that the father should have consulted the mother beforehand and, if necessary, sought court approval, it found his relocation justified. Given the housing crisis and the need for adequate accommodation for his blended family, his decision to was deemed reasonable. The court does reproach the father for leaving the mother and the children unprepared in this situation, failing to take their needs and feelings into account.

Although the court criticized the father for acting without consultation, it ruled that his interests outweighed the mother’s interest in having the children live in the same place of residence. The court acknowledged that the distance between the old and new residence was less than ideal but not significant enough to override the father’s substantial need for appropriate housing. Since the care arrangement remained largely unchanged and school transportation continued, the court saw no reason to modify it.