CA 1989 s. 13

Section 13 Children Act 1989: changing a child's surname or taking them abroad

Section 13 CA 1989: where a "lives with" child arrangements order is in force, a change of surname or removal from the UK needs everyone's written consent or the court's leave.

Official text CA 1989 s. 13 — United Kingdom

Where a child arrangements order to which subsection (4) applies is in force with respect to a child, no person may— cause the child to be known by a new surname; or remove him from the United Kingdom; without either the written consent of every person who has parental responsibility for the child or the leave of the court. Subsection (1)(b) does not prevent the removal of a child, for a period of less than one month, by a person named in the child arrangements order as a person with whom the child is to live . In making a child arrangements order to which subsection (4) applies, the court may grant the leave required by subsection (1)(b), either generally or for specified purposes. This subsection applies to a child arrangements order if the arrangements regulated by the order consist of, or include, arrangements which relate to either or both of the following— with whom the child concerned is to live, and when the child is to live with any person.

Text in force at .

Source: legislation.gov.uk — The National Archives (legislation.gov.uk), reproduced under licence Open Government Licence v3.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

Section 13 places two specific decisions under control where a child arrangements order regulating who the child lives with is in force. No person may cause the child to be known by a new surname, and no person may remove the child from the United Kingdom, without either the written consent of every person who has parental responsibility for the child or the leave of the court. It applies to "no person", including the parent the child lives with.

Subsection (2) contains the holiday exception that most families rely on without knowing its source: the restriction on removal does not prevent a removal for a period of less than one month by a person named in the order as a person with whom the child is to live. So a parent named in a lives-with order can take the child abroad for up to a month without asking, and the other parent cannot. Subsection (3) lets the court grant the leave required for removal when it makes the order, either generally or for specified purposes - which is how a family with relatives abroad avoids returning to court each year.

What the section does not do is govern the position where no such order exists. There the control comes from elsewhere: taking a child out of the United Kingdom without the consent of everyone with parental responsibility can be an offence of child abduction, and a parent who fears removal applies for a prohibited steps order under section 8. A permanent relocation abroad is not covered by the one-month exception at all and requires consent or leave, decided by reference to the welfare principle in section 1.

When it applies

  • One parent wanting to give a child their new partner's surname.
  • A holiday abroad where the other parent will not give written consent.
  • A proposed permanent move to another country with the children.
  • A parent named in a lives-with order planning a five-week trip.
  • A parent worried a child will be taken abroad and not returned.

What this section does not say

  • It only applies where a lives-with child arrangements order is in force. Without one, the controls come from the law of child abduction and from prohibited steps orders under section 8.
  • It does not stop short holidays by the parent the child lives with. Subsection (2) permits removal for less than one month by a person named in the order.
  • It does not cover moves within the United Kingdom. A move from England to Scotland is not a removal from the UK, though it may still be a matter for a section 8 application.
  • It does not deal with passports or with objections to a passport application.
  • It does not say how the court decides whether to give leave. That is governed by section 1.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

A parent named in a lives-with order books a six-week trip abroad to visit family and tells the other parent that consent is not needed because the children live with them.

How the wording applies

Subsection (2) permits removal from the United Kingdom for a period of less than one month by a person named in the order as someone with whom the child is to live - and only by that person. The fact that decides this is the length of the trip: six weeks is outside the exception, so the written consent of everyone with parental responsibility, or the leave of the court, is required exactly as it would be for a shorter trip taken by the other parent.

How the parties settled it

They agree a four-week trip with dates, addresses and flight details shared in advance, video calls twice a week, and written consent given for that trip only.

Illustrative example

One parent wants the children to take their new partner's surname at school so the family name matches. The other parent objects.

How the wording applies

Where a lives-with child arrangements order is in force, no person may cause the child to be known by a new surname without the written consent of everyone with parental responsibility or the leave of the court - and 'no person' includes the parent the children live with. The fact worth separating out is that being known by a name at school is what the section catches, so an informal change is not outside it merely because no deed was signed.

How the parties settled it

They agree the children keep their registered surname on all school and medical records, and that the new partner's surname may be used informally at home if the children choose to.

Related sections

CA 1989 s. 8 Child arrangements, prohibited steps orders: CA 1989 s. 8 CA 1989 s. 1 Child's welfare is paramount | CA 1989 s. 1 CA 1989 s. 2 Who has parental responsibility: CA 1989 s. 2 CA 1989 s. 10 Who Can Apply for Section 8 Orders | CA 1989 s. 10

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the Acts of Parliament that apply in England and Wales.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of CA 1989 s. 13 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in England and Wales.

← All UK legislation pages