Relocating the residence of a minor child after a separation or divorce does not equate to a simple change of address. The decision can impact school, daily routines, the time spent with each parent, and the entire framework established in the custody order. It is therefore natural to wonder whether simply informing the other parent is sufficient, whether their consent is required, and what happens when the relocation depends on a new job or housing needs.
In this guide, I want to help you distinguish between a parent's personal relocation and that of the child, understand which factors guide the judge's decision, and recognize the available paths when there is no agreement. We will also see why custody, placement, and habitual residence are connected concepts, but not overlapping ones.
The habitual residence of the minor requires a joint decision
The starting rule is agreement: the habitual residence of a minor child constitutes a choice of particular importance and, normally, must be established by both parents. Articles 316 and 337-ter of the Civil Code maintain this rule even after the end of cohabitation, as shown in the legislative text on parental responsibility.
Registered residence and habitual residence do not always coincide. The former is the address registered with the municipality; the latter identifies, in substantive terms, the effective center of the minor's life. Therefore, the place where they stably live, the school attended, activities, family and social relationships, and daily organization all matter. A registry procedure alone does not resolve a conflict between parents.
A parent can change their own residence, but that does not give them the right to unilaterally transfer the child's residence as well. Article 337-sexies requires each parent, in the presence of minor children, to notify the other of any change in their own residence or domicile within thirty days. This communication concerns the parent's whereabouts and does not replace the consent necessary to move the center of the minor's life.
In the absence of agreement, the judge decides, choosing the solution most appropriate to the child's best interests. The conflict is not resolved by automatically giving priority to the parent with whom the minor lives most often, nor by forcing the other parent to accept the relocation. It is necessary to establish which organization best protects the continuity of the child's life and relationships.
Custody and placement do not automatically grant freedom of relocation
Joint custody concerns decision-making responsibilities. Primary placement, on the other hand, indicates which parent the child primarily lives with, without turning that parent into the sole holder of important decisions. The designated primary placement parent manages many daily needs, but does not acquire the power to unilaterally choose a new city for the minor.
Exclusive custody must also be read carefully. As a rule, decisions of major interest continue to be made by both parents, unless the judicial order expressly grants the custodial parent broader decision-making power. Therefore, reading the word "exclusive" is not enough: one must consider what the order specifically establishes regarding parental responsibility and residence.
The proposed relocation does not render a parent unfit. The freedom to choose where to live and work does not disappear with separation. The issue is different: should the child follow that parent or remain in the previous environment, possibly modifying their placement? The Court of Cassation has clarified that the answer must depend on the child's best interests, not on an indirect sanction against the parent intending to relocate.
The 2022 Civil Review of the Court of Cassation recalls, among other things, a decision in which relocation far from the other parent was not considered, by itself, incompatible with the child's placement. However, there is no automatic authorization: reasons, consequences, and alternatives must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
What matters in the relocation decision
Distance changes real organization, not just the number of kilometers. A move can make mid-week overnight stays impractical, complicate school drop-offs, or reduce the spontaneity of relationships with the other parent. The judge therefore considers whether the previous schedule can continue or must be replaced by less frequent but longer periods.
The reasons for relocation must be concrete. Actual employment, stable housing, the support of a family network, or specific care needs carry a different weight than a yet undefined project. This is not about judging the parent's personal choice, but about understanding what benefits and difficulties it will produce in the child's daily life.
The child's continuity remains central. Age, school path, any healthcare needs, ties with brothers and sisters, the presence of significant family figures, and adaptability are all relevant. No element operates in isolation: stability does not mean that every change is prohibited, just as a parent's job opportunity does not render the relationships already built by the child irrelevant.
The relationship with both parents must remain effective. The possibility of organizing sustainable travel, sharing transport and costs, maintaining regular contacts, and guaranteeing vacations and holidays assumes relevance. A child who has reached twelve years of age, and even a younger one capable of discernment, is heard in cases provided by law. Their opinion matters, but does not equal a decisive vote.
Agreement, joint application, or judicial decision
A clear agreement is the least conflictual path when both parents recognize that the relocation protects the child. It should not be limited to consenting to the new address: it is useful to regulate the school, the time spent with each parent, transportation, related costs, vacations, remote communications, and any revision of the maintenance contribution.
A private understanding is not always sufficient. If a judgment, decree, or authorized agreement already exists that identifies the placement and visitation arrangements, the relocation may make a formal modification necessary. A text signed between parents documents consent, but may leave effectiveness and enforcement problems if it conflicts with still-active judicial conditions.
The modification can be presented jointly to the judge. In this way, the parents ask to adopt a new organization consistent with the relocation. Control remains focused on the child's best interests: the common will of the parents carries significant weight, but does not make an arrangement approvable if it compromises their relationships or essential needs.
Assisted negotiation is another consensual possibility. It requires at least one lawyer for each party. In the presence of minor children, the agreement must be transmitted to the competent Public Prosecutor and is authorized if it serves the best interests of the children. The regulation is contained in Article 6 of Decree-Law no. 132 of 2014.
If consent is lacking, a decision must be requested. The interested parent can ask for authorization to relocate and modification of the conditions regarding placement, visitation, and maintenance. The other can propose an alternative organization, including the placement of the child with themselves. When there is imminent and irreparable harm, urgent measures can be requested; mere organizational convenience, on the other hand, is not enough to turn every conflict into an emergency.
If the child has already been relocated without consent
Acting unilaterally exposes one to concrete consequences. The judge can consider the parent's behavior, especially when the move interrupts relationships with the other, removes the child from school without an adequate solution, or makes the established schedule unfeasible. This does not mean that placement is automatically modified: it remains necessary to identify the most protective solution for the minor.
Afait accompli does not immediately create a new territorial jurisdiction. Article 473-bis.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that, if the relocation is not authorized and a year has not passed, the court of the minor's last habitual residence prior to the move has jurisdiction. The rule prevents a unilateral decision from immediately determining the competent judge as well.
The judge has enforcement and correction tools at their disposal. They can regulate the execution of custody provisions, address controversies regarding parental responsibility, and, in the presence of serious violations or prejudicial conduct, modify conditions, admonish the parent, or adopt further measures. The text of Articles 473-bis.38 and 473-bis.39 is reported in Legislative Decree no. 164 of 2024.
Return is not a mechanical consequence in every domestic relocation. The judge must evaluate the child's current best interests, the methods of the move, the time elapsed, integration into the new environment, and concretely practicable alternatives. For this reason, it is preferable to address disagreement before moving houses, changing school enrollment, and interrupting previous habits.
Relocation abroad requires additional caution
Moving the minor to another State without consent can constitute an illicit international relocation when it violates the other parent's right to participate in the choice of residence. It is not enough for the parent to carry the child's passport or for the trip to be materially possible: the content of parental responsibility, agreements, and current provisions must be verified.
International rules aim for the rapid restoration of the previous situation, without confusing the return proceeding with the final decision on custody. The Ministry of Justice describes prerequisites, prevention, and the role of the Central Authority on the page regarding international child abduction. In these situations, timeliness is particularly important.
In relations between European Union States, the rules of EU Regulation 2019/1111 also assume relevance, regulating jurisdiction, parental responsibility, and illicit relocation in cases falling within its scope. A life project abroad must therefore be regulated before departure, indicating residence, visitation, travel, documents, and methods of exercising joint decisions.
Frequently asked questions
Can I relocate with my child if I am the primary placement parent?
You cannot automatically decide for the child as well. You can change your residence, but moving the habitual residence of the minor normally requires the consent of the other parent or a court decision. Primary placement concerns daily life and alone does not grant exclusive power over choices of major interest.
Is it enough to communicate the new address within thirty days?
No, the communication has a different function. The obligation provided by Article 337-sexies concerns the occurred change of residence or domicile of the parent and allows the other to find them. It does not constitute authorization to relocate the child. For the minor, an agreement on the new habitual residence or, in case of conflict, a judicial order is needed.
Can my child choose which parent and in which city to live?
The child is heard, but does not decide alone. The law provides for hearing the minor who has reached twelve years of age and even the younger one capable of discernment. Their opinion is considered according to age and maturity, together with school, relationships, care needs, and the concrete sustainability of the different solutions.
Can the judge deny the relocation even if I found a better job?
Yes, if the project does not adequately protect the child. Stable employment is an important element, but it must be weighed against distance, school, time with the other parent, and possible alternatives. The judge does not decide what job you must accept: they establish whether the minor should follow you, remain in the current environment, or change placement.
What can I do if the other parent refuses without proposing alternatives?
Dissent does not definitively block every change. You can attempt a complete agreement on the new conditions or ask the judge to decide on residence and modify placement, visitation, and maintenance. It is useful to present a concrete project, not just the reasons for the relocation: housing, school, transport, and continuity of relationships must turn out to be practicable.
Deciding before relocation becomes a conflict
The best time to regulate change is before the move. It is necessary to distinguish what concerns the personal life of the parent from what modifies the center of the child's life and to compare realistic solutions. A well-defined agreement prevents school, distances, and transport from becoming new reasons for conflict.
If you need to propose a relocation or contest a move already decided unilaterally, you can contact me to frame the current provision, the minor's needs, and the legally viable alternatives.