Despite having sole parental authority, the mother is obliged to relocate back

A mother relocated with her daughter to a place 200 km away from the father, without the father knowing. Although she had sole parental authority, the court of appeal ruled that the mother must relocate back. The reason? The mother had failed to facilitate contact between the father and their daughter and neglected to keep the father informed about their daughter’s well-being.

Facts
During their relationship, the parents had a daughter, now four years old. Although the father acknowledged his daughter, the mother retained sole parental authority. After the breakup in 2021, the parents signed a settlement agreement stating that visitation would occur by mutual agreement, without a fixed schedule. They also agreed that the mother would inform the father of significant decisions regarding their daughter.

In August 2023, the mother moved with her daughter to a location 200 km away from the father without his knowledge, which led the father to initiate legal proceedings.

Decision court December 1, 2023
The court established a provisional visitation schedule allowing the father to have supervised contact with his daughter once a month, with the mother being responsible for transportation. Meanwhile, the Child Care and Protection Board was requested to assess the parental authority and the future contact structure between the father and his daughter. All other decisions were postponed.

Recommendation Child Care and Protection Board July 24, 2024
The Child Care and Protection Board considered itself insufficiently informed, as is had not become clear to what extent the father, due to his intellectual disability, was able to meet his daughter’s needs and what was maximally feasible in his regard. Therefore, they advised delaying the final decision on the visitation arrangement for nine months, awaiting the involvement of a specialized visitation support organization to further investigate the future contact structure between the father and his daughter.

Additionally, they advised the court to increase the visitation frequency to once every three weeks and to require the mother to keep the father informed about their daughter’s well-being. They also advised the court to deny the father’s request for joint parental authority.

Decision court August 6, 2024
The court established a new visitation schedule, allowing the father to see his daughter every two weeks, with a gradual increase in duration of hours. The father’s requests for joint parental authority and for the mother to relocate back were denied.

Decision court in summary proceedings October 16, 2024
Despite the decision of the court of August 6, 2024, the mother refused to comply with the visitation arrangement arguing it conflicted with the Child Care and Protection Board’s advice. While awaiting the court of appeal’s ruling, the court in summary proceedings ordered the mother to adhere to the visitation schedule set by the court on August 6, 2024, subject to a penalty of € 250,00 for each time she fails to comply, up to a maximum of € 5.000,00.

Mother’s request
The mother requested the court of appeal to annul the lower court’s decision of August 6, 2024 and to order that the visitation between the father and his daughter should take place under the supervision of a specialized support organization. This organization should oversee the process, determining how the visitation arrangement can be gradually expanded and how supervision can be phased out when appropriate. Alternatively, the court is requested to establish a visitation arrangement as it deems appropriate.

Father’s defense
The father requested the court of appeal to dismiss the mother’s appeal and compel her to comply with the visitation schedule set by the court on August 6, 2024 or as determined by the court of appeal, subject to a penalty of € 250,00 for each time she fails to comply.

Additionally, he requested the court to order the mother to relocate back by February 1, 2025, or another reasonable deadline, subject to the same penalty. The father also asked for joint parental authority or, alternatively, an information-sharing arrangement.

Circumstances
A few circumstances did not favor the mother’s case:
• Despite the mother’s claim of cooperating with the contact between her daughter and the father, she seems to want it to take place under her conditions. The mother prematurely terminated supervised visitations twice and she also has attempted to block visitations twice. Even after the decision of the court of August 6, 2024, the mother refused to comply.
• The father only learned about the mother’s relocation after filing legal petitions.
• The court of appeal found no valid reason for the mother to relocate.
• The child, at 4.5 years old, was not yet attending school in her new place of residence.
• The mother had failed to keep the father informed about the well-being of their daughter, which information is also necessary for the father to shape the moment of interaction with his daughter in a positive way.

Decision court of appeal
Since the mother had sole parental authority, she was initially free to choose where she wanted to live with her daughter. However, even with sole parental authority, the law requires a custodial parent – in this case the mother – to promote the child’s relationship with the other parent. If this obligation is not met, the right to relocate can be restricted.

The court of appeal considers it to be in the best interest of the child to live closer to her father before she is required to attend school at the age of five. This would allow visitation to take place in a less burdensome manner and enable the father and his daughter to build a bond more easily. In this regard, the court of appeal finds it more important to note that, due to the father’s intellectual disability, maintaining a visitation arrangement is more likely to be challenged. The court of appeal considers that the mother is expected to take this circumstance into account.

Furthermore, the court of appeal has found no evidence that the current visitation arrangement, in which a family member of the father supervises the visits, is not in the best interest of the child. Therefore, the mother’s request is denied.

The court of appeal ordered the mother to relocate back to a place of residence within a 25 km radius of the father’s home by April 1, 2025, subject to a penalty of € 250,00 for each day she fails to comply, up to a maximum of € 25.000,00. Additionally the court of appeal ruled that sole parental authority would remain with the mother and the court of appeal granted the father’s request for a structured information-sharing arrangement.

Appeal court of Arnhem-Leeuwarden, 16-01-2025, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2025:219

 

Read more about child relocation.