International Family Relocation: Where to Next?

The author of this post is Nishat Hyder-Rahman, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, MSCA Impact Fellowship Programme, Department of Private and Economic Law, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.  She is also a volunteer researcher at GlobalARRK and presented findings from the GlobalARRK report in panel 2 of the conference. The views expressed in this post are the author’s own, and not to be attributed to either GlobalARRK or the VUB.

On 2-4 April 2025, the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) and the Embassy of Canada in Washington D.C., co-hosted a conference entitled 15 Years of the HCCH Washington Declaration: Progress and Perspectives on International Family Relocation, spotlighting the Washington Declaration on International Family Relocation (hereinafter, the Washington Declaration, or simply ‘the Declaration’).

The event brought together legal professionals and academics, government and policy experts, and special interest groups to reflect on the impact of the Washington Declaration and contemporary issues in international family relocation more broadly.

The Washington Declaration

The Washington Declaration was adopted in 2010 as a result of discussions that took place at the International Judicial Conference on Cross-Border Family Relocation. The 2010 conference gathered judges and experts from around the world, many of whom were also present at the 2025 event. The Declaration itself is written in the HCCH’s trademark clear, concise style, containing only thirteen principles. It addresses the availability of relocation proceedings, the notice period, the factors that are relevant to a decision on international relocation, the interaction between cross-border relocation and the operation of the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction (HCCA) 1980 and the Hague Convention on International Child Protection (HCCP) 1996, out-of-court decisions on relocation, the enforcement of orders, modification of contact provisions, judicial communication and finally, a call for further research, development, and promotion of the principles.  The content of the principles is relatively neutral, reflecting, perhaps, the common ground found between delegates from different jurisdictions during the 2010 discussions. Although the Declaration is not a legally binding document, it is nonetheless valuable, offering a starting point for a consistent global approach to international relocation.

Establishing the Current Landscape in International Family Relocation

Turning then to the 2025 conference, the first panel set the scene.  The opening address, delivered by Diana Bryant, former Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, reflected on developments within international family law in the fifteen years since the Washington Declaration.  Professor Robert George KC gave an overview of legal scholarship in international family relocation, including recent statistics on relocation cases, and two psychological experts spoke about the impact of abduction and relocation on children.  The second panel continued setting the scene.  Philippe Lortie and Laura Martinez-Mora from the HCCH permanent bureau set out HCCH’s framework of relevant conventions (HCCA 1980, HCCP 1996, Child Support Convention 2007) and available tools, respectively.  The relatively new Canadian legislation that sets out a clear and detailed process specifically for relocation was highlighted, as was a recent study by the charity GlobalARRK, on the lived experience of parents applying for international relocation in order to return to their home country.

What Constitutes the Child’s Best Interests?

The central tension within the socio-legal discourse on relocation was apparent across the first two panels, albeit just below the surface of the conference proceedings.  Scholarship on how to approach international family relocation remains heavily polarised, due to variations in empirical results and fundamental doctrinal differences on how to determine the child’s best interests.

On the one hand are those who emphasise the importance of a child maintaining regular contact with both their parents, and the risk of parental alienation upon the left-behind parent.  This approach prejudices international relocation, which inevitably makes regular (in-person) contact much more challenging.  Both of the psychology-focused reports on panel 1, appeared to follow this approach.

On the other hand are those who emphasise the importance of the quality of time spent, rather than the frequency or amount of time spent with the left-behind parent.  Furthermore, proponents of this approach emphasise the interdependence between the welfare of the primary carer parent (who is applying for relocation) and the welfare of the child.  This approach supports facilitating international relocation, where the circumstances demand it, i.e. to protect the welfare of the child directly or via the primary carer. The GlobalARRK report aligned with this approach. (For a recent overview of this debate and the relevant literature see: R. Schuz, ‘International Child Relocation after Relationship Breakdown, in Research Handbook on International Family Law, edited by J.M. Carruthers and B.W.M. Lindsay, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2024, at p. 133 ff.).

Both these approaches place the child’s best interests at the centre – however they differ over what constitutes the child’s best interests.  Unfortunately, there was little scope within the conference to openly engage with this discussion, in the context of policy making and legal practice.  This was a missed opportunity given the depth and breadth of international expertise in the room.

Country Reports on Relocation Policy and Procedures

The following four panels, indeed the core of the conference, was dedicated to a series of country reports from legal practitioners and judges, outlining the policy and procedures for international relocation in their jurisdiction.  For those countries that were represented at the 2010 conference, this was also an opportunity to reflect on progress in the intervening years. The country reports revealed considerable variation in how states regulate relocation.  While a few countries have a specific statutory framework for relocation (e.g. Canada), other countries have developed their legal framework for relocation primarily through caselaw (e.g. England & Wales.).  Furthermore, some countries do not have any specific procedures for relocation, and the matter is instead addressed under the general legal framework pertaining to parental responsibilities (e.g. Hungary), custody (e.g. Germany, the Netherlands) or child arrangements (e.g. Spain), to name a few examples.

The Impact and Influence of the Washington Declaration

Alignment between the relevant national laws on relocation and the content of the Declaration was evident in the country reports.  A common theme throughout all the country reports was the paramountcy of the child’s best interests, which is set out in Principle 3 of the Declaration.  Furthermore, the factors relevant to relocation decisions, set out Principle 4 of the Declaration, in whole or in part, were also common to most country reports.  However, this is most likely due to general, widespread evolutions within family law (for example, the strengthening of children’s rights and, therefore, the centrality of the best interests) rather than a conscious effort to incorporate or mirror the text of the Declaration itself.  While there is a certain degree of awareness of the Washington Declaration, there were only a few reported instances of direct reference to the Declaration by the courts.

Current and Future Research and Policy Perspectives

The penultimate panel considered current and future research and policy. The international NGO, International Social Service reported on its work, and AIJUDEFA (International Association of Spanish Speaking Family Law Jurists) shared the results of its recent survey on relocation procedures in thirteen jurisdictions.  The IAFL also shared the results of its extensive research comparing international relocation laws and procedures around the world.  Finally, Professor Marilyn Freeman and Professor Nicola Taylor, leading experts in the field of (international) family law and part of the 2010 conference delegation, reflected on the academic research landscape in international relocation.  They pointed to the lack of research undertaken on international relocation in recent years and indicated key future research directions, including the impact on the child’s (right to) identity in the context of relocation and abduction.   Furthermore, they indicated the need to consider more closely how the best interests of the child are determined in different jurisdictions in the context of research on child outcomes, and the possible links between the relocation jurisdiction and abduction.

Alternative Dispute Resolution and Support Services

The final panel of the conference focused on alternative dispute resolution and support services in international relocation.  Reunite International, a charity, presented on its work involving mediation in international relocation cases.  The Italian experience of introducing a pilot project on mediation training for cross-border family matters was shared, as was the experience of mediation in the American context.  Finally, GlobalARRK presented on its work as a charity supporting stuck parents around the world, and the services it offers.

Concluding Reflections

The conference was extremely informative; in particular, the country reports offered a unique, comparative insight into the operation of relocation law around the world.  Two elements would have arguably improved an otherwise excellent event.  Firstly, a lot of information was imparted over the three days, and although there was time for questions following each panel, it was not suitable for extended discussions.  Facilitating exchanges, in a roundtable or similar format, on key issues within international relocation would have allowed for deeper, more dynamic engagement with the matters at hand.  For example, despite acknowledgment of the gendered nature of relocation (most relocation applicants are mothers), and indeed abduction (most taking parents are mothers), the gender perspective and expertise was missing from conference proceedings.  Secondly, critically reflecting on the Washington Declaration itself, in particular, considering the expansion or detailing the principles would have propelled the discourse further.  Nevertheless, the conference was well-organised, well-attended, and a genuinely interesting gathering that will hopefully reignite much-needed research on international family relocation.

Finally, interested readers will be happy to know that many of the conference presentations are available via the HCCH website.  Furthermore, presentations will be written and published by the HCCH as a Special Issue of the Judge’s Newsletter (forthcoming).