By 
Family law guide
One parent threatened to have the child taken abroad without consent, so that relatives overseas would raise the child. The same parent said the child would never see the parent they lived with again. This is exactly the kind of threat the family court can act on before it happens. The court does not have to wait until a child is actually taken. Our family law specialists acted for the parent the child lived with, in an application for a prohibited steps order to prevent the removal. We explain what the family court can do when a parent only threatens removal. We also explain how a child taken abroad without consent could amount to child abduction.
This is an anonymised account, with the client’s consent. It is written to show how the Children Act 1989 is used where a child’s removal from the country is threatened. Its purpose is also to show what a court weighs when a parent has had no contact with a child for a long period. If you are facing something similar, our guide to international child abduction sets out the wider legal picture. You can also read more about how we prepare and review these success stories.
If the other parent has threatened to take your child abroad
Perhaps it came in the middle of an argument. Perhaps it arrived in a message at midnight. Either way, you are now lying awake working out whether they meant it. Is the passport still in the drawer? Has a flight been booked? Would anyone stop them at the airport? That fear is real, and it is exhausting. It also has a habit of making people wait, because they do not want to overreact. You do not have to be certain a threat is genuine before you ask what your options are.
Nothing you read online can tell you what to do next. That is because everything turns on your own facts. The child’s age, who they live with, what contact is happening, whether there is already a court order, who holds the passports, what exactly was said and when – all of it changes the picture. A child taken abroad without consent is not beyond the reach of the courts of England and Wales. But which route applies, and how quickly it moves, depends on where the child has gone and what orders are already in place. In every decision about a child, the court treats that child’s welfare as the paramount consideration. The checklist it works through appears in section 1 of the Children Act 1989. That section is worth reading if you want to understand the approach to these decisions.
A free initial consultation is simply a conversation. You say what has happened, in confidence. One of our family law specialists then tells you plainly what the options are and what they are not. Some parents call us because of a threat. Others call after the fact. For them, the question that needs answering is the return of a child taken abroad without consent. Both are worth a phone call. There is nothing to sign. There is no obligation to go further. No one can promise you how a court will decide. But you can stop guessing. Call 0330 094 5880 to arrange a free initial consultation with a family law specialist.
The legal issue
A very young child lived with one parent. The other parent said they intended to take the child out of the United Kingdom to be brought up by relatives abroad, and that the child would never see the parent they lived with again.
There had been no contact between that parent and the child for a long period. There was no financial support, and no practical progress towards the settled home and work that parent said they were arranging. Updates that the court had directed should be sent to them went unanswered.
The question for the court was what arrangements were safe and right for this child, and whether the child needed protection from being taken out of the country.
The law this rests on
- Children Act 1989 s.1(1) - the child's welfare is the court's paramount consideration.
- Children Act 1989 s.1(3) - the welfare checklist, including any harm the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering.
- Children Act 1989 s.1(2A) - the court presumes that a parent's involvement in a child's life furthers that child's welfare, unless the contrary is shown.
- Children Act 1989 s.1(2B) - "involvement" means involvement of some kind, direct or indirect, and not any particular division of a child's time.
- Children Act 1989 s.8 - child arrangements orders regulate with whom and when a child is to live, spend time or otherwise have contact; a prohibited steps order prevents a specified step being taken without the consent of the court.
- Children Act 1989 s.13(1)(b) - where a child arrangements order that says with whom or when a child is to live is in force, the child may not be removed from the United Kingdom without the written consent of every person with parental responsibility or the leave of the court.
- Children Act 1989 s.7 - the court may ask a Cafcass officer to report on matters relating to the child's welfare.
- Child Abduction Act 1984 s.1 - a person connected with a child under sixteen commits an offence by taking or sending the child out of the United Kingdom without the appropriate consent.
How we approached it
The case was built around the welfare checklist rather than around the disagreement between the parents. The starting point in law is that a parent's involvement is presumed to further a child's welfare, so the work was to set out, item by item, the evidence capable of displacing that presumption on these particular facts.
Three strands did most of the work. The first was the length of the gap in the relationship: where a child of this age has not seen a parent for a long time, the real question is whether a bond exists at all, and the welfare report addressed that directly. The second was the distance between what the other parent said they wanted and what they had actually done - no settled home, no work in place, no response to the updates the court had directed, and no financial contribution. The third was the stated intention to remove the child from the country, which had been made openly and was therefore evidence rather than speculation.
The case did not seek to end the relationship between the child and the other parent. The presumption in s.1(2A) is a presumption about involvement of some kind, and s.1(2B) treats indirect contact as involvement. Indirect contact was the arrangement that fitted the evidence while the risks were unresolved, and it left a route open if things changed.
The case also asked the court to deal with the removal risk directly, rather than leaving it to be resolved later.
The outcome
The court made a child arrangements order confirming that the child lives with the parent who had been caring for them, and provided for indirect contact with the other parent. It made orders preventing the child from being removed from that parent's care, from their nursery or school, and from the United Kingdom. The court also limited further applications for a defined period.
Outcomes of this kind turn entirely on the evidence in the individual case. Nothing here is a prediction or a promise about any other case.
What to take from this
- A threat to take a child abroad is something the family court can act on before anything happens, through a prohibited steps order under Children Act 1989 s.8.
- Where a child arrangements order says a child lives with you, Children Act 1989 s.13(1)(b) already prevents the child being removed from the United Kingdom without your written consent or the court's permission.
- The presumption of parental involvement in Children Act 1989 s.1(2A) is not a presumption of equal time, and s.1(2B) makes clear it can be met by indirect contact.
- What a parent has actually done carries more weight than what they say they intend to do. Courts look for practical steps.
- Keep a clear record of what you have offered and sent. Evidence that you have supported the child's relationship with the other parent is powerful when you are asking the court to limit contact.
- Taking or sending a child under sixteen out of the United Kingdom without the appropriate consent can be a criminal offence under Child Abduction Act 1984 s.1.
Checked and approved for publication by Iblal Iqbal.
Last reviewed .
![Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34: What It Really Decided](https://www.kabirfamilylaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Prest-v-Petrodel-1024x572.jpg)
![Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42: What It Decided](https://www.kabirfamilylaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Radmacher-v-Granatino-1024x572.jpg)
