Background
M. [N], a French national, and Mme [H], an Australian and American national, had two children together: born in 2014 and 2015. Following a family law dispute, a French judge ordered in 2016–2017 that both children could not leave French territory without the written consent of both parents. This interdiction de sortie du territoire (exit prohibition) was entered into the national database of persons sought and applied equally to both parents.
In August 2023, M. [N] petitioned to have the prohibition lifted as it applied to him personally, arguing that the father—who had centered his life in France and posed no abduction risk—should not be subject to the same restriction as the mother, who had demonstrated a pattern of opposing his travel authorizations for the children and appeared to pose a genuine risk of unlawful removal.
The Paris Court of Appeal upheld the blanket prohibition in October 2025, holding that French law requires the consent of both parents to lift the exit ban and does not permit “distributive or unilateral authorization.” M. [N] then appealed to the Court of Cassation.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Cassation partially quashed the court of appeals’ decision. The court held that while exit prohibitions serve the legitimate aim of preserving children’s relationships with both parents and preventing unlawful removal, they constitute an interference with fundamental rights—specifically, the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights) and freedom of movement (Article 2, Protocols 3–4 of the Convention). Any such restriction must therefore be necessary and proportionate to achieve its protective aims.
The court reasoned that Article 373-2-6 of the French Civil Code, which grants family judges discretion to “take measures to guarantee the continuity and effectiveness of the child’s relationship with each parent,” permits—and indeed requires—tailoring restrictions to the actual risk at hand. The exit prohibition can be limited to the parent who poses a genuine danger of undermining the child’s relationship with the other parent, rather than applied blanket to both parents when only one presents such a risk.
The court found that the Paris Court of Appeal had violated this proportionality principle by rejecting the father’s argument and maintaining the bilateral prohibition despite evidence that he alone did not present an abduction risk. The case was remanded to the Versailles Court of Appeal for reconsideration on this basis.
Key Takeaways
- Exit prohibitions for children must be proportionate and tailored to target only the parent(s) presenting an actual risk of unlawful removal.
- A blanket bilateral restriction violates human rights principles (privacy, family life, freedom of movement) if one parent poses no genuine abduction risk.
- French family judges have discretion to fashion individualized exit restrictions—not “all or nothing” orders—when custody disputes involve international family circumstances.
- Courts must base such restrictions on concrete evidence of risk, not on parental nationality or historical patterns that no longer apply.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly strengthens the human rights framework governing family law in France and across Europe. It establishes that courts cannot simply impose blunt bilateral exit prohibitions on all parents in shared custody arrangements; restrictions must be narrowly tailored and proportionate. For international families and cross-border custody disputes, the ruling means that a parent who has established a stable life in the country and poses no flight risk cannot be indefinitely hamstrung by a prohibition designed to address the other parent’s behavior.
The decision also reinforces the principle that remedies for parental abduction risk—a legitimate concern in international family disputes—must be calibrated to the actual evidence and must respect fundamental freedoms. For practitioners, it clarifies that French courts now have (or must now recognize) the authority to issue differentiated prohibitions affecting one parent but not the other, rather than treating both parents identically even when the risk profiles differ materially.