More and more families have ties to more than one country. When parents cannot agree on where the children will live and how contact will be arranged after a separation, the Children Act steps in. This article gives an overview of the key rules and considerations in international relocation cases.
1. When do Norwegian child law and Norwegian courts apply?
When parents cannot agree on the children’s residence and contact arrangements after a separation, the Children Act governs the matter.
Whether Norwegian courts can hear the case depends on the child’s connection to Norway. Section 82 of the current Children Act states:
“A case concerning parental responsibility, the relocation of a child out of the country, with whom the child shall reside permanently, or contact may be brought before a Norwegian court if the child is habitually resident in Norway.”
If Norwegian courts have jurisdiction, Norwegian child law applies – unless Norway has entered into a different agreement with the other country involved.
The Hague Convention 1996
Norway is party to several international agreements, known as conventions. The most important in the field of children’s law is the Hague Convention of 1996. The Hague Convention governs jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforcement and cooperation in matters of parental responsibility and the protection of children. Under the 1996 Hague Convention, the state where the child has their “habitual residence” is, as a starting point, the state that may take protective measures for the child. The Convention makes exceptions for interim measures and urgent cases.
The new Children Act from 2028
On 1 January 2028, a new Children Act enters into force – Act of 20 June 2025 No. 40 on Children and Parents (barnelova) – replacing the old Children Act from 1981. The new Act aims to facilitate equal parenthood and raises the threshold for agreement in domestic disputes about residence. However, the Act makes no legal changes regarding disputes about relocation to another country. Whether the new Act’s stronger focus on equality between parents will nonetheless influence the assessment in international relocation cases remains to be seen.
2. What does the child’s “habitual residence” mean?
The first thing a court establishes is where the child has their “habitual residence”. This question is central in all relocation cases, because the answer determines which country’s courts have jurisdiction.
Straightforward and complex cases
For many children, the answer is straightforward: the child has lived permanently in one country for a long time, attends school there, and only leaves the country for holidays.
For other children, the picture is far more complex. The child may have recently moved between countries, or may be staying somewhere temporarily, for example because a parent worked abroad for a semester. In these cases, it can be genuinely unclear which country the child’s habitual residence belongs to. That uncertainty is often at the heart of relocation disputes.
What does the court consider?
Case law and legislative history show that the court carries out an overall assessment of the child’s ties to the relevant state. The key question is where the child, on an overall assessment, “has the centre of their life interests”. It is the child’s – not the parents’ – ties that matter most. For very young children, however, the parents’ own ties to the country carry significant weight in the assessment.
In the overall assessment, the court looks in particular at:
- Which nursery or school the child attends
- Whether the child understands and uses the language of the country
- Whether the child has friends and a social network there
- How long the child has been living in the country
A sufficiently stable connection is required before a court concludes that the child is “habitually resident” in Norway.
When does “habitual residence” change?
The starting point is that the parents must have agreed that the child will move abroad. An agreed temporary stay is not enough. But over time, the child’s “habitual residence” may shift to the new country. When that happens, a parent who then insists on returning to Norway is no longer returning home – they are initiating a relocation to another country without the other parent’s consent.
Such disputes typically arise where one parent is studying, working, or caring for relatives abroad, and the family either travels together or one parent consents to the child accompanying the other parent to another country for a period.
The risk of international child abduction
If a parent wishes to remain in the country of stay with the child, this may constitute child abduction – if the country of origin is still the child’s “habitual residence”. The reverse also applies. If one parent takes the child home without the other parent’s consent, but the child’s “habitual residence” has already shifted to the country of stay, this too constitutes child abduction – even if it feels like a return home.
The rules on child abduction follow from the Norwegian Child Abduction Act and the Hague Convention on Child Abduction of 1980. In addition, unlawful abduction is a criminal offence under the Norwegian Penal Code – and under the criminal law of many other countries.
Parents should think carefully about what they want and can accept in the longer term before taking the family abroad for an extended stay.
3. How to relocate abroad with the child lawfully
If the child is “habitually resident” in Norway and the parents disagree on which country the child should live in, there is still a lawful route: a parent may relocate abroad with the child by obtaining the other parent’s consent or a court order.
Consent or court order
If the other parent holds parental responsibility, relocation abroad requires either that parent’s consent or a court order granting permission to move. The court decides on the basis of what is in the child’s best interests – as required by the Norwegian Children Act, the Norwegian Constitution and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In some cases, it is genuinely in the child’s best interests to relocate to another country.
High threshold – especially for the youngest children
The threshold for obtaining a relocation order is high. This applies in particular to children over one year and under 12 years of age. The assessment for newborn babies is somewhat different, as the very youngest children are often very closely attached to one person and more dependent on that person’s care. For a 16-year-old who wishes to move with a parent, the court attaches such great weight to the child’s own opinion that a move is often granted.
Arguments against relocation abroad:
- The child experiences a major change of environment
- The child loses a familiar neighbourhood, school, friends and network
- Contact and the relationship with the remaining parent is weakened
The last argument often carries the most weight, and the court then concludes that the child should remain in Norway rather than relocate.
Arguments in favour of relocation abroad:
- The child has strong ties to the other country, and extended family lives there
- The child has limited contact with the other parent and can maintain the relationship despite the distance following relocation
- The resident parent provides better care for the child in the other country – for example because that parent lacks a support network, or struggles with finances, employment or language in the current country of residence
The court weighs all these considerations against one another. A decision permitting relocation abroad is entirely possible, but the outcome always depends on a specific and broad assessment of the individual child’s situation.
4. Who can help you?
International child law cases – including relocation cases – are often complex and time-critical. We act as specialist children’s lawyers with in-depth expertise in international child cases, including relocation, child abduction, and questions of jurisdiction and applicable law. Please do not hesitate to contact us for an initial assessment of your case.