The Crime and Policing Act 2026: What Parents Need to Know About International Child Abduction

Written by Jean Lee- Solicitor | last reviewed August 2026

International travel is a normal part of modern family life. Children regularly travel abroad with one parent to visit relatives, spend holidays overseas or maintain relationships with family members who live in another country. Most of the time, these arrangements are based on trust and cooperation. However, some of the most distressing international child abduction cases do not begin with a parent secretly removing a child from the United Kingdom. Instead, they begin with a trip that everyone agreed to.

A holiday becomes an extended stay. Communication breaks down. Contact stops. The left-behind parent is told that the child will not be returning.

The Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduces a significant change to the law aimed at addressing precisely this situation. Parents involved in international arrangements should understand the implications of this important reform and the potentially serious consequences of failing to return a child as agreed.

What has changed?

Section 137 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 amends section 1 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 by creating a new criminal offence of retaining a child outside the United Kingdom without the appropriate consent after the child has been lawfully taken or sent abroad.

The new provision, inserted as section 1(1A) of the Child Abduction Act 1984, provides that a person connected with a child under the age of sixteen commits an offence where:

• the child is taken or sent out of the United Kingdom with the appropriate consent; and
• the child is subsequently detained outside the United Kingdom without that consent.

The amendment applies only where the child is taken or sent abroad after the provision comes into force. Equivalent provisions have also been introduced for Northern Ireland.

Closing a long-standing gap in the law

Before this amendment, the Child Abduction Act 1984 primarily focused on the act of unlawfully taking or sending a child out of the United Kingdom.

In practice, however, many international child abduction cases do not involve an unauthorised departure. A parent may obtain the necessary consent for a holiday, family visit or period of contact abroad and only later decide not to return the child.

This created an obvious gap in the criminal law. Whilst civil remedies were often available, including proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, the criminal offence did not clearly address circumstances where the initial departure had been entirely lawful but the subsequent retention was not.

The new offence is intended to close that gap by criminalising the wrongful retention of a child abroad following lawful travel.

The amendment also reflects recommendations made by the Law Commission more than a decade ago, recognising that wrongful retention can be just as harmful to children and families as an unlawful removal in the first place.

Why is this important?

As specialists in international child abduction matters, we regularly advise parents whose children have been taken overseas and not returned.

In many cases, the central issue is not how the child left England and Wales, but what happens afterwards. The emotional and practical consequences for the left-behind parent can be profound. Parents are often left facing uncertainty, significant legal costs and the prospect of urgent proceedings in more than one jurisdiction.

The new offence sends a clear message: consent to travel is not consent to relocate.

Parents considering whether to agree to overseas travel may take reassurance from the fact that the law now expressly addresses situations where a child is retained abroad beyond an agreed return date. Equally, parents travelling overseas with children should recognise that obtaining permission for a trip does not confer a right to keep the child abroad indefinitely.

Does this replace Hague Convention proceedings?

The new offence does not replace proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention, which remain the primary legal mechanism for securing the return of children who have been wrongfully removed or retained across international borders.

The purpose of Hague proceedings is not to punish a parent. Rather, the objective is to restore the status quo and ensure that decisions about the child's future are made by the courts of the country that should properly determine those issues.

The significance of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 is that it introduces an additional potential remedy where a child is wrongfully retained abroad. The civil and criminal processes serve different purposes and may operate alongside one another.

Whether criminal proceedings are pursued in any particular case will depend upon the facts and the approach taken by the relevant investigating and prosecuting authorities.

It is also important to note that the new offence is not retrospective. Parents whose children were wrongfully retained abroad before the provision came into force will generally continue to rely upon the legal remedies that existed at the time of the retention.

What does this mean for parents?

Parents should exercise particular caution where:

• a child is travelling overseas to spend time with the other parent;
• there are ongoing court proceedings concerning the child;
• there has previously been a threat not to return the child;
• one parent has stronger ties to another country; or
• there are concerns that a parent may seek to relocate permanently abroad.

More than ever, it is important that travel arrangements are clearly documented. Departure and return dates, travel itineraries, consent arrangements and flight details should be recorded in writing wherever possible.

What should you do if your child is not returned?

Time is often critical.

If your child has not been returned from another country as agreed, you should seek urgent specialist legal advice without delay.

Depending on the circumstances, available remedies may include:

• emergency High Court proceedings;
• Hague Convention proceedings;
• wardship proceedings;
• location and recovery measures;
• international liaison through the relevant authorities; and
• consideration of any criminal offences that may have been committed.

The most effective strategy will depend on the country involved, whether that country is a Hague Convention signatory, and the specific facts of the case.

How we can help

International child abduction cases are among the most urgent, complex and emotionally challenging disputes heard by the family courts.

They frequently involve the interaction of domestic family law, international conventions, foreign legal systems and increasingly complex cross-border enforcement issues. Early specialist advice can often make a crucial difference.

Our international child abduction team acts for parents in urgent cross-border disputes involving Europe, the Middle East, North America, Africa and Australasia. We regularly advise on Hague Convention proceedings, High Court applications and wardship proceeding, working closely with overseas lawyers and international authorities to secure the safe return of children.

The introduction of section 1(1A) of the Child Abduction Act 1984 represents one of the most significant developments in this area of law for many years. For parents navigating international family arrangements, understanding the implications of this new offence has never been more important.

If you are concerned that a child may not be returned from abroad, obtaining specialist advice at the earliest opportunity can be critical. Contact us now