International Child Abduction: New Risk Of Criminal Liability For Abducting Parents

Making decisions about children after a relationship ends is often fraught. Emotions reach new heights when one parent decides to take their child out of the UK without the other’s consent.

This is inevitably an alarming experience for the left-behind parent. Reunite International estimates that more than 500 children are abducted from the UK by a parent every year.

But until recently, there was a significant gap in the criminal law protections offered to left-behind parents in such a scenario. This has recently changed through the introduction of section 137 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 (“CPA 2026”).

In summary, it will be a criminal offence for a parent to take a child out of the UK with the consent of the other parent, but then to keep them abroad without consent, also known as “retention” of the child.

What was the previous position?

The old criminal position was centred around taking the child out of the country without the other parent’s consent (or without the consent of all persons holding parental responsibility of that child). There was no charge for the retention of a child abroad.

In more depth, in some extreme examples, when a parent takes a child out of the UK, this may amount to kidnapping in English and Welsh law. However, this is rarely an appropriate criminal charge, as kidnapping requires someone to use a) force or the threat of force; or b) fraud to take someone away from a place without their consent. Most child abductions will not include these elements.

Theoretically, the more appropriate criminal charge would be child abduction pursuant to the Child Abduction Act 1984 (“CPA 1984”). There are two versions of the offence, one of which applies to persons connected with a child under 16 (section 1(1)) and another for persons who are not so connected (section 2(1)). The section 1(1) offence is the one with relevance to international child abduction in family law.

The section 1(1) offence requires that a person connected with a child under the age of sixteen “takes or sends” the child out of the United Kingdom without the appropriate consent.

A person connected with a child includes a child’s parents, among others.

To simplify, “appropriate consent” in most cases will mean the consent of both parents, or the consent of the court (where a relocation has been ordered).

If someone removes a child from the UK without the consent of another person whose consent is required, they may have a defence if:

1. They do it in the belief that the other person has consented or would consent if they were aware of all the relevant circumstances;
2. They have taken all reasonable steps to communicate with the other person but have been unable to communicate with them; or
3. The other person has unreasonably refused to consent.

The last of these three is not an option if the person refusing consent is named in a child arrangements order as a person with whom a child lives, among other exceptions.

A person guilty of child abduction is liable on summary conviction (at the magistrates’ court) to six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine; or on conviction on indictment (at the Crown Court) to up to seven years’ imprisonment.

What was the problem with the old law?

You will have seen that the section 1(1) offence encompasses taking or sending a child out of the UK without the appropriate consent. Previous court rulings have established that this covers when a parent decides in the UK that they will take a child abroad and keep them there (and then subsequently does this), but not when a parent takes their child abroad with an intention to return them to the UK, before deciding while abroad to keep the child there.

For example, if a parent goes on holiday with their child, and while on the holiday they decide not to return to the UK with the child, they would not have committed a crime. More to the point, a parent could easily argue that they decided to keep their child abroad after getting off the plane when they actually made this decision before they got on it. It may be very difficult for the police and CPS to prove the contrary beyond reasonable doubt.

How has the law changed?

This changed with section 137 of the CPA 2026. This inserts a new section 1(1A) into the CAA 1984, which reads as below:

“(1A) Subject to subsections (5) and (8), a person connected with a child under the age of sixteen commits an offence if –
(a) the child is taken or sent out of the United Kingdom with the appropriate consent, and
(b) at any time after the child is taken or sent, the person detains the child outside the United Kingdom without the appropriate consent.”

This new subsection specifically makes it an offence to take a child out of the UK with the appropriate consent, but then to retain them abroad without the appropriate consent. As such, it would now be an offence for a parent to go on holiday with their child with the other parent’s consent, and then while on that holiday to decide not to return to the UK with the child. A holiday is just an example; nothing in the wording of the legislation limits its effects to this scenario.

This section of the act is yet to come into force, but once it does, this should close the loophole identified above.

Implications for international child abduction matters

This change to the criminal law of international child abduction has ambiguous effects on the remedies within family proceedings when this occurs: proceedings under the Hague Convention 1980 or proceedings under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court.

Once section 137 of the CPA 2026 comes into force, a parent who abducts a child from England & Wales may be at increased risk of criminal prosecution. This threat may deter international child abductions occurring in the first place, and where they do occur, it may in principle give a left-behind parent additional leverage to get an abducting parent to cooperate in returning child within family proceedings.

However, this extra leverage may be illusory in practice.

Abducting parents have an obvious incentive to flee to countries where they can stay long term, e.g., countries where they have citizenship/permanent residency, family links, and/or a way to make a living. A threat of criminal prosecution in England & Wales may not motivate an abducting parent’s cooperation if they do not need to return there. Of course, the UK has extradition treaties with many states, but not all, and in any event a treaty does not mean an extradition process will be viable in the specific circumstances.

The problem might be especially acute if the abducting parent is a national of a country that is neither a Hague Convention signatory nor has an extradition treaty with the UK. China is an example; an abducting parent who is a citizen of China, and who has family to support them in the transitional period after arrival, might have no practical reason to return to the UK. What does section 137 add in this case? Indeed, the threat of criminal prosecution might deter any kind of voluntary cooperation with the left-behind parent.

The legislation also presents interesting issues around timing. What if a parent takes a child out of the UK for the long term with the other parent’s consent (e.g. to live abroad for two years), but at the end of that period, they refuse to return them to the UK? This seems less obviously “criminal” than a holiday scenario. As discussed, there are various defences the “abducting” parent could avail themselves of, but their applicability may vary.

As ever, each case will turn on its own facts, and it will take time to see if the legislation proves to have the potential effects we have outlined.

If your child had been internationally abducted or you have been accused of internationally abducting your child, our expert Child Law solicitors are available to advise swiftly when time is of the essence. Please call 0330 822 3451 to make an appointment with one of the team.

We offer flexible meeting arrangements at our offices in Central London, Wandsworth, Stratford and Orpington, and can accommodate your needs at a location and time that is most convenient for you. Our team is happy to discuss your requirements and arrange an appointment to suit your circumstances.

Please note that we do not hold a Legal Aid contract and are therefore unable to provide Legal Aid services. All family matters are undertaken on a privately funded basis only.