Fifteen Years of the HCCH Washington Declaration: Progress and Future Perspectives on International Family Relocation

Janaína Albuquerque
22 hours ago
3 min read

Updated: 19 hours ago

Fifteen years ago, the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) and the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (ICMEC) convened an international judicial conference to discuss international family relocation, namely court applications in which one parent seeks judicial authorization to relocate to another country with their child or children. It was recognized that the ease of international travel and the increasing interconnectedness of modern society have led to greater mobility among families and, consequently, to a growing number of relocation disputes. At the same time, different jurisdictions have adopted markedly different approaches to these cases, resulting in substantially different outcomes for parents and children depending on where the proceedings are heard.

The conference culminated in the drafting and adoption of the Washington Declaration, named after the city in the United States where the event was held. The Declaration sets out a series of best-practice principles intended to guide courts dealing with international relocation cases in an effort to promote greater consistency and predictability. Among its most significant provisions is Paragraph 4, which identifies a non-exhaustive list of factors that judges should consider when determining relocation applications, including:

The child's right to maintain regular and meaningful contact with both parents;
The child's views, taking into account their age and maturity;
The parties' proposals regarding practical arrangements, including housing, education, and employment;
The reasons for opposing the proposed relocation;
Any history of domestic violence or family abuse, whether physical or psychological;
The family's caregiving history, particularly the continuity and quality of parenting and contact arrangements;
Existing custody and contact orders;
The impact of the proposed relocation on the child, the parents, the extended family, education, and social life;
The nature of the parents' relationship and the relocating parent's commitment to supporting and facilitating the child's relationship with the left-behind parent after relocation;
Whether the proposed contact arrangements are realistic and adequately take into account their financial and emotional implications;
Whether any contact arrangements that are conditional upon relocation will be enforceable in the destination country;
Any mobility-related challenges affecting members of the family; and
Any other circumstances that the judge considers relevant.

At the time of its adoption, the Declaration was agreed by more than 50 judges and experts from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Mexico, New Zealand, Pakistan, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It is important to note, however, that the Washington Declaration is not an international convention and therefore is not legally binding. Rather, it serves as a valuable reference framework to assist courts and practitioners in approaching international relocation disputes through the lens of the best interests of the child.

Between 2 and 4 April 2025, fifteen years after the original conference, the HCCH held a follow-up meeting in partnership with the International Academy of Family Lawyers (IAFL) to assess the progress that has been made worldwide in this area. One of the principal reasons for convening the meeting was the recognition that the absence of clear legal frameworks governing relocation cases may contribute to an increase in international child abduction. The conference was organised into eight panels, and the presentation materials have since been made available on the HCCH website. Looking ahead, the HCCH announced that it will circulate a questionnaire among its Members to collect information on domestic relocation procedures and on the extent to which the Washington Declaration is being applied in practice.

The British charity GlobalARRK also participated in the conference, presenting its 2025 report based on a survey of 165 individuals identified as "stuck parents"—parents who are effectively trapped in a foreign country because they cannot legally relocate with their children without risking allegations of international child abduction. The report found that domestic violence is frequently cited as a reason for seeking permission to relocate internationally with children and that many applicant parents experience severe financial hardship as well as significant impacts on their mental health.

Among the principal conclusions of the 2025 meeting were the following:

Some jurisdictions provide specific legal procedures for international relocation cases (such as Canada and the United Kingdom), while others do not (including Spain, France, and Brazil);Although the best interests of the child principle is widely applied, there remains no consensus on what it requires in practice;There are considerable differences in the duration of relocation proceedings, ranging from a matter of weeks in the Netherlands to several years in Italy and many other jurisdictions; andAvailable data remain limited, but the evidence collected to date suggests that applications for international relocation are granted relatively infrequently.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you require guidance regarding your specific circumstances, please consult a qualified legal professional.