Another Dutch court case in which a parent relocates with the children to another city without the consent of the other parent (with parental authority) or the consent of the court, and only later obtains that consent from the court. The mother\u00a0took a big risk, but it turned out well for her.<\/p>\n
The mother had bought a house in a city where her current partner lives and where she has work and a social network.<\/p>\n
However, this city is some distance away. It is a 20-minute drive from this new home to the school. Whereas from the father’s home, the children can simply cycle to school themselves.<\/p>\n
The parents share care 50\/50 and the father therefore considered the move to drastic and not in their best interest.<\/p>\n
The court had rejected the mother’s request for substitute consent.<\/p>\n
However, the high court understands the mother’s decision to buy a house in this location, partly because the distance between the two locations is not that far. The high court also took into account that the mother had promised to bring the children to sports and other activities. The high court did not consider it decisive that the children could not cycle to school, friends or sports activities from their mother’s home, because they could do so 50% of the time, when staying with their father.<\/p>\n
During the hearing, the Child Protection Board mentioned that, in general, when parents agree on an arrangement and a situation and communicate this to the children, many arrangements and solutions can work well for the children.<\/p>\n
In this context, the court notes that it would be good if the father could also take the children to and from the mother’s house. This could have a positive effect on the children. The court believes that it is in the children’s best interests for their father to accept this new situation and to convey this to the children. This will prevent the children from becoming further embroiled in a conflict of loyalty.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n