Trapped overseas: Why some parents can’t move home with their kids

Sophia* always thought she’d return home to New Zealand after studying abroad. It was a plan she and her boyfriend even started to put in writing after moving in together in Norway.

But when the relationship broke down, she found herself legally barred from moving home with her children. Caught in a custody battle that exposes the hidden risks of international love and parenthood.

The legal minefield has become so complicated, custody experts in both New Zealand and Norway say the only way to protect yourself is to avoid having children overseas.

Content warning: This article discusses psychological abuse.

How Sophia ended up in this situation is a pathway thousands of New Zealanders have been on. An overseas experience (OE) is so common, it's considered a rite of passage for young New Zealanders.

In her 20s, Sophia - not her real name - moved to Europe to study where she fell in love with a Norwegian man.

After finishing her course, Sophia and her boyfriend moved to Norway together. But overtime, she alleges the relationship became psychologically abusive.

“It was difficult to leave him because I didn't speak Norwegian or have friends here, not to mention the shame that I would have of admitting the situation I had gotten myself into,” she says. “So I stayed.”

Six months later, they moved in together. While organising to co-own a house together and expecting their first child, the couple started to draft a relationship agreement that discussed their shared property, finances and where they wanted to raise their family.

The unsigned agreement set out their intentions to spend time in both Norway and New Zealand for the next few years, and then decide where was best to settle down.

Re: News has seen a copy of the document. It shows the couple discussed moving to New Zealand for a time or permanently during their relationship. But the agreement was never signed by either person and has ultimately had no bearing on the case.

Re: News reached out to the father’s lawyer who responded: “The father has never agreed to or expressed a wish to relocate permanently to New Zealand. The mother has established her life in Norway, where the children were born and raised.”

Following their separation, the couple had joint custody and couldn’t agree on where the children would live, so the case has moved through the courts since 2024. Both the District Court and Court of Appeal in Norway have assessed that it’s not in the best interests of the children to relocate to New Zealand.

“I thought I did everything right. But I’m still stuck,” Sophia says.

After finishing her studies and having a second child, Sophia alleges the relationship became more controlling.

When Sophia talked about wanting to move to New Zealand as a family, she says her partner refused. The following year, she says he refused again.

“I insisted we go,” she says. “He had visited New Zealand in the past. He knew how important it was to me.”

The Court of Appeal judgment says the “high level of conflict” came to a head in 2024 “when dad and his family did not return the children to mum at the agreed time during Easter and did not tell her where they were. Dad and his family had also taken control of the children’s passports”.

It states the dad’s family did this out of “fear of mum taking the children to New Zealand” but in hindsight this “was a clear over-reaction".

“It is also highly understandable that the way dad’s family handled this situation destroyed mum’s faith in them, and that she has not felt safe these last couple of years,” the Court Appeal judgment says.

This conflict ultimately led to the couple separating in early 2024. Around the same time, Sophia stayed in a crisis shelter. Earlier in the year she also connected with a support service for victims and perpetrators of abuse, following a referral from her family counsellor.

“I would never have ended up in a refuge in New Zealand. I had nowhere else to go,” Sophia says. “It was a crisis, and they were the ones who helped.”

“I never would’ve stayed this long [in the relationship] if I could’ve just gone to my parents. But I was afraid that if I left, we’d be stuck,” Sophia says.

The hardest part, Sophia says, was being on the other side of the world to her family.

“I stayed [at the refuge] until my mum could come from New Zealand,” she says.

“[After that] I couldn’t eat or sleep and lost 10kg in six weeks.”

The father’s lawyer told Re: News in a statement: “The police did not initiate a [criminal] case after speaking with the mother [about the alleged abuse]. Similar allegations were presented in the lower court, and both parties and claims have been assessed by several professional and judicial instances. The findings showed that the parties are considered equally capable parents, and that the children have strong bonds with both parents.”

The Court of Appeal determined that Sophia cannot relocate with her children to New Zealand because her children “will have the most robust care base with mum in Norway and dad in the same neighbourhood. This arrangement will best secure the children’s childhood and development.”

It said: “Mum is better placed for being a good parent in Norway than dad would be in New Zealand.” The Court referred to Sophia’s established job, housing and connections in Norway.

The father also submitted that if he is “forced” to move to New Zealand, “this could impair his functional ability, which is detrimental to both mum and the children”.

The Court of Appeal said the biggest risk for relocation to New Zealand is the children's potential loss of contact with their dad as he hadn’t decided whether he would also move to New Zealand.

The Court has now drawn up a detailed schedule for how holiday time will be split between the parents. It allows Sophia to take the children to New Zealand on holiday for up to four weeks, including an extended stay for up to six months, which the Court found “would be in the children’s best interests for mum to be allowed to do”.

Sophia’s fear of not being able to move home to New Zealand with her children is far from irrational.

The Hague Abduction Convention - a 45-year-old international treaty between more than 100 countries - was designed to prevent the abduction of children across borders.

Originally, it aimed to stop non-primary caregivers from kidnapping children after a relationship breakdown, by creating a way for children to be returned as soon as possible to where they usually live. Typically, these cases were a father abducting a child from their mother.

The law was effective; it would fast-track these cases through bottlenecked courts and didn’t require extensive evidence, so children could be returned quickly.

But the drafters of the Convention did not anticipate the majority of ‘taking’ parents (75%) being mothers, with almost all (94%) being the primary or joint-primary carers of their children, according to a study in 2021.

And many are fleeing domestic violence. Research by the UK charity Globalarrk, which stands for Global Action on Relocation and Return with Kids, found that of the mothers relocating children, 91% had experienced some form of abuse, 37% reporting physical abuse.

An exception to the convention can be granted by a judge to prevent the return of child if “there is grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation”.

However, domestic violence is not specifically referred to and the ‘grave risk’ threshold must be met for the exception to be granted.

This means the convention may lead to children being returned despite the ‘taking’ parent fleeing due to domestic violence.

New Zealand family law barrister and Hague Convention expert Alex Ashmore says the Hague Convention was created in a time of “wild optimism about international comity”, but over time it has been “eroded enormously”.

It's struggling to adapt to modern reality or reflect the complexities of international relationships, he says, especially where there is high conflict in relationships.

“The Convention was designed to short-circuit long custody battles. It’s not about what’s best for the child,” he says. “It’s been gradually unravelling over the last 15 years because of concerns about domestic violence, political reasons, and the rise of child advocacy.”

He says it's “increasingly irrelevant and confused” and should be replaced, but there is no political motivation to do this, so countries have been amending their local laws instead. “But they don’t talk to each other,” he says.

Sophia’s situation isn’t technically a Hague Convention case because this law only kicks in once one of the parents flees the country without the other parent's consent.

Ashmore says the convention does not decide where the child lives, this is up to the courts of the child’s home country. But the underlying principles act as a deterrent for the child being abducted.

Sophia’s lawyer Else-Marie Merckoll is a family lawyer in Norway with expertise in international family law and child abduction. She says that over the last few years, it has become increasingly difficult for families to get permission to relocate out of Norway.

“In Norway, we have a lot of focus on the children having good contact with both parents. That is really important, it’s the main aim,” she says. “So that makes getting permission for one parent to relocate really difficult - especially when it is so far away.”

Merckoll says it could potentially be easier for Sophia to relocate if she wanted to move to a country neighbouring Norway. “Moving to the other side of the world makes it much more difficult because it will be harder for both parents to have easy access to the children,” she says.

While these cases are becoming increasingly common in Norway, Merckoll suspects the issue is even bigger than we know. This is due to “many” cases not going to court because of how difficult they are to win and how long and expensive they are for families.

So far, Sophia says she has spent more than $100,000 on her legal fees in the space of two years with the financial support of her parents.

Merckoll has worked on successful relocation cases in Norway but says these aren’t common and success rates are low.

“Usually, it is when the children didn’t have good contact with the father, and the relationship was very difficult - sometimes with violence or drugs,” she says. “It is possible, but very difficult.”

In cases involving domestic abuse, Norway’s courts do consider this when determining what is in the best interests of the child, she says. “But if it’s psychological, it’s much more difficult to prove.”

She says this can leave these parents feeling trapped in Norway with limited support.

Writing an agreement about your future plans is a step many young couples wouldn’t think to do.

Merckoll says the drafted contract shows both parents once believed living in New Zealand, even just temporarily, would be in the best interests of the children. But she says, signed or not, it is not legally binding.

“It is all about what the court decides is in the best interests of the children, not what was agreed years ago.”

New Zealand-based lawyer Ashmore says he often tells clients “kids aren’t televisions”.

“You can’t sign a contract that says the kid will live here, and then here, and then here. It’s up to the courts to decide what is best for the kid. You don’t do contracts with kids.”

Like Merckoll, he says he has also noticed a shift with some countries refusing more relocations. He says there is also a growing focus in New Zealand on whānau and children having a connection to both parents, which makes it more difficult for relocation cases to succeed.

Asked for advice for New Zealanders looking to prevent this situation, both Merckoll and Ashmore said the simplest way is to avoid having children with someone overseas. The extreme sentiment proves just how difficult relocation laws have become to navigate.

“Find a someone from your own country, it makes everything much easier,” says Merckoll. “If you get pregnant, say you have to move to have the baby, otherwise you risk being trapped there."

Ashmore adds: “There’s nothing you can really do to protect yourself. Honestly, I would just marry the person on your street.”

Sophia says while the system aims to put the child first, it forgets the “power imbalances” that are at play.

“I don’t have family here, I don’t have the support he has. So I feel alone,” she says.

Sophia says even with her privileges, with education, a career and financial assistance from her family, “I still ended up here".

"This could happen to anyone,” she says. “I want to raise awareness so others don’t end up like me. If I don’t talk about this, nothing changes. I’m in a position to speak - so I will.”

1737: The nationwide, 24/7 mental health support line. Call or text 1737 to speak to a trained counsellor.

Women’s refuge. Call the free crsisline on 0800 733 843.

Are you Okay. Call their 24/7 helpline on 0800 456 450.

Suicide Crisis Line: Free call 0508 TAUTOKO or 0508 828 865. Nationwide 24/7 support line operated by experienced counsellors with advanced suicide prevention training.

Youthline: Free call 0800 376 633, free text 234. Nationwide service focused on supporting young people.

* Sophie is not her real name – it is used for privacy reasons.