Spanish Civil Code (CC)
Parental authority is regulated in Articles 154 to 171 of the CC.
Civil Code of Catalonia (CCC)
In Catalonia, parental authority is regulated in Book Two, Articles 236-1 to 236-30 of the CCC.
In Spain ‒ whether under the CC (state law) or the CCC (foral law) ‒ a birth mother automatically acquires parental responsibility (patria potestad/potestat parental) for her child from the moment of birth.
Key Points
However, there are a few situations in which a birth mother might not automatically have parental responsibility under Spanish law, such as adoption cases or assisted reproduction with legal disclaimers.
Automatic Acquisition
A father acquires parental responsibility automatically from the moment he is legally established as the child’s father, if:
Requirements Where Parents Are Unmarried or Paternity Is Not Presumed
If the parents are not married, the father must recognise the child legally (reconocimiento de paternidad) before the Civil Registry, a notary, or in a will.
This recognition can be done:
For non-genetic parents seeking to obtain parental responsibility, certain legal requirements must be met ‒
To achieve this objective, the arguments to be used, based on the selected cases, are as follows.
Requirements for Non-Genetic Parents Requesting Parental Authority
Different Cases
The following elements must be present for parental responsibility in same-sex couples to be recognised:
Different Cases of Jurisprudence
In order for cases to be comparable to the one raised, the following elements must be present:
What follows is a selection of different jurisprudence whose conclusions align with the principle that the assent of biological parents is not necessary if they are subject to deprivation of parental authority.
For a case to be assessed, the following elements must be present:
In order to request or defend a change of residence for a child, the request must be based on the best interests of the child, providing objective and detailed evidence that justifies the transfer and demonstrates that it does not harm the emotional, educational and social stability of the child or the relationship with the other parent. It may be advisable to prove the child’s capacity for parental co-operation, personal and economic situation, and, where appropriate, the child’s opinion. However, it should be borne in mind that the lack of justification, the damage to the relationship with the other parent or the negative impact on the stability of the child could be solid arguments for the opposing party to successfully challenge the request. It would therefore be prudent to prepare a solid argument and anticipate potential objections, providing all the necessary documentation and evidence.
The parent seeking relocation must file an application for judicial authorisation, requesting such relocation.
At present, under the current law, is mandatory for parties to prove that they have gone through mediation or made reasonable attempts to reach an agreement.
If one parent does not agree with the relocation of the children, the other parent must request judicial authorisation.
The child’s opinion, which gains increasing significance with age and maturity, is not the sole factor to be considered. Other personal, family, and social circumstances also play a decisive role in the final decision.
The age of the child is a particularly relevant factor when assessing their wishes, especially from the age of 12 onwards, at which point both legislation and judicial practice presume a greater degree of maturity and capacity for discernment. At this stage, the child is usually more firmly rooted in their family, educational, and social environment, which means that their preferences and wishes carry significant weight in decisions affecting them. However, such wishes must be considered alongside other objective factors to ensure that the final decision primarily serves the child’s best interests.
Legislation, case law, and judicial practice consistently affirm that, in cases involving a change of residence, siblings should remain together, as sibling cohabitation is considered an essential element for their emotional stability and proper affective development. This principle is grounded in the best interests of the child, as recognised in both the CC and the CCC, as well as in various judicial decisions that prioritise maintaining close family bonds.
However, this criterion is not absolute, and courts have recognised exceptions where specific circumstances ‒ such as the special needs of one of the children, the existence of strong bonds with third parties, differences in age and educational stages, or the express wishes of the minors themselves ‒ make a temporary or permanent separation advisable. In all cases, the decision must be duly reasoned and aimed at safeguarding the best interests of each child involved.
Courts place particular importance on how ongoing contact and a meaningful relationship with the non-relocating parent will be ensured. This is a key criterion when assessing applications for a change of residence, as maintaining strong emotional bonds and regular communication with both parents is essential to the child’s well-being, in line with the principle of the best interests of the child as set out in legislation and case law.
For this reason, it is crucial that the proposal submitted with the petition includes a detailed and realistic plan specifying the frequency, means, and conditions of such contact ‒ whether in person, virtual, or through scheduled visits ‒ as well as the allocation of any travel-related costs.
In addition, the court must be provided with sufficient evidence to rule out that the relocation request is motivated by the applicant parent’s personal interests or by arbitrary reasons. It is therefore essential to submit objective and well-documented justifications showing that the move is based on legitimate grounds.
The reasons for relocation that the authority appears to be most sympathetic towards are as follows.
The grounds for opposition that the authority appears to be most sympathetic towards are as follows.
It is not possible to establish a standard or predetermined cost for this type of procedure, since, in accordance with current regulations and the principle of freedom of contract within the legal profession, each lawyer is entitled to freely agree their fees with their client.
The final amount will depend on multiple factors, including:
Therefore, the fee assessment must be carried out on an individual basis, taking into account the specific characteristics of each case and the level of specialisation required from the professional.
The duration of the proceedings will largely depend on the location of the competent court. In courts located in large cities, where the caseload is generally high and the judicial bodies are often overburdened, the estimated timeframe for handling this type of matter generally ranges between six and eight months.
Conversely, in courts in medium or smaller cities, although one might assume that timeframes would be shorter, in practice, proceedings can still be extended due to limited resources or the accumulation of cases in courts with fewer staff.
An additional factor affecting these timelines arises from recent legislative reforms, which have introduced the requirement to prove that the parties have made a genuine attempt to reach an agreement before initiating judicial proceedings. This requirement, which involves carrying out prior conciliation or mediation steps, has extended the overall duration of the process by at least two additional months.
Therefore, the total length of the proceedings must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account both the specific workload of the court in question and the preliminary procedural requirements imposed by law.
The judge will assess, in each specific case, all the circumstances surrounding a request to change the residence of minor children, always following the guiding principle of the best interests of the child.
In general terms, the parent acting as the primary caregiver ‒ that is, the one who assumes the majority of the day-to-day responsibilities for the children’s upbringing, education, and care ‒ is more likely to obtain authorisation for such a change, given the closer emotional bond and established routines of cohabitation. However, this factor cannot be considered in isolation. The court must weigh a broader set of elements, including:
It should be noted that the increasing prevalence of shared custody arrangements has introduced an additional layer of complexity to these requests. When both parents exercise parental responsibilities on an equal time and functional basis, a change of residence constitutes a substantial alteration of the caregiving structure, requiring a stronger justification and a more rigorous judicial evaluation.
Therefore, while the role of the primary caregiver remains a significant factor, the final decision will depend on a comprehensive assessment of all relevant variables to ensure that the measure adopted truly serves the best interests of the child.
The feasibility of a change of residence is closely linked to the distance between the current location and the proposed destination. In Spain, some cities may be 800 to 1,000 km apart, which represents a substantial relocation and, consequently, a significant impact on the child’s life, routines, schooling, and social and family environment. In such cases, the relocation proposal must be supported by a thorough consideration of these circumstances, providing clear justifications and a detailed plan that ensures the continuity of the parent-child relationship and the child’s stability.
By contrast, when the distances are shorter ‒ for example, 30 to 50 km ‒ the obstacles to obtaining judicial authorisation are generally fewer, as maintaining the established contact arrangements with both parents is easier and the disruption to the child’s daily life is considerably less significant.
For a permanent relocation of a child outside the national territory, the express consent of the other parent holding parental responsibility is mandatory. In the absence of such consent, prior judicial authorisation must be obtained. This requirement is intended to safeguard the joint exercise of parental authority and to ensure that decisions of such significance are always made in the best interests of the child.
By contrast, when the trip abroad is temporary and limited to a holiday period, no formal authorisation from the other parent is required. In such cases, it is sufficient to inform the other parent in advance of the travel arrangements — including dates, destination, and conditions — so as to facilitate parental co-ordination and to ensure the proper exercise of both parents’ rights and responsibilities.
The return of a child who has been unlawfully removed may be requested either through the Spanish Central Authority or directly before the courts of the country to which the child has been taken. The latter option is generally advisable, as it is often faster and more effective, particularly given that the Spanish Central Authority is currently overburdened due to insufficient staffing.
When the child is located in a state that is a signatory to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, there are additional safeguards to secure their return. Nevertheless, in such cases it is essential to act with the utmost urgency and to obtain immediate legal representation in the child’s new jurisdiction. This will help ensure that proceedings are initiated without delay and will increase the likelihood of a swift and successful return.
In Spain, the availability of free legal advice to the parent of an abducted child under Articles 7(g) and 25 of the 1980 Hague Convention is primarily channelled through the country’s legal aid system (asistencia jurídica gratuita).
Article 7(g) – Co-Operation to Provide Legal Aid
Article 25 – Equal Treatment
Practical Availability
Limits
This report, although dated, seems to be the only specific source with detailed figures. No updated public link with year-to-year statistics from the Spanish Central Authority has been identified. According to some unofficial sources, around 350 international abductions occur in Spain every year.
It can be said that Spain effectively complies with the mandate established by the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, both in terms of international co-operation and the implementation of swift domestic procedures for the child’s return.
Through its Central Authority ‒ the Subdirectorate-General for International Legal Co-Operation of the Ministry of Justice ‒ Spain has developed mechanisms to receive, process, and enforce return applications, working in co-ordination with the central authorities of other contracting states. It also ensures that applicant parents, whether nationals or foreigners, have equal access to free legal aid as provided for in Articles 7(g) and 25 of the Convention, provided they meet the economic eligibility criteria set out in Law 1/1996 on Legal Aid.
Furthermore, the Spanish courts apply the Convention’s timelines and principles as a priority, striving for prompt proceedings and adopting precautionary measures where necessary, with the aim of safeguarding the best interests of the child and preventing displacement-related harm.
Possibility of Applying for the Return of the Child
If the country from which the child has been removed is not a signatory to the 1980 Hague Convention, the parents can still request the child’s return in Spain. Such applications would be made directly before the Spanish courts, generally through civil proceedings based on parental rights under Spanish law (parental responsibility) and the best interests of the child as per Article 2 of the Organic Law on the Legal Protection of Minors (LO 1/1996) and Article 154 of the CC. The return will not be automatic; the court will assess the circumstances, including the child’s welfare and any risks involved.
Procedure, Applicable Principles, Cost and Timescale
Effect of the Country of Origin on the Principles
While the fundamental principle of the child’s best interests applies in all cases, the absence of reciprocity (when the other country is not a Hague signatory) removes the presumption of prompt return and can make enforcement abroad more difficult. If the other country has bilateral agreements with Spain covering family law co-operation, these may influence the court’s decision and the practical enforceability of orders. Without such agreements, the Spanish court can still order return, but its execution in the foreign jurisdiction may be uncertain.
There is no applicable information in this jurisdiction.
calle Sant Quirze 55
2P
08201 Sabadell
Barcelona
Spain
+34 610 38 41 09
advocada@esthersusin.com www.esthersusin.comHow Spanish Judicial Decisions Regarding the Relocation of Children Are Guided by the Best Interests of Each Child
International child relocation has become a significant issue in family law in Spain, particularly in the context of international families as Spain is a destination country for many foreign families. This situation arises when one parent, following a separation or divorce, wishes to move to another country with the child, often leading to conflicts between the parents and raising important legal and ethical questions, mainly affecting the child’s rights.
This report aims to provide a general guide on international child relocation in Spain. It will address the applicable legal framework, relevant Spanish Supreme Court jurisprudence, and offer a detailed analysis of the “best interests of the child” principle and how it influences judicial decisions regarding relocation.
Legal framework in Spain
International child relocation in Spain is regulated by a combination of domestic laws and international conventions that seek to protect the child’s rights and ensure that any decision made in this context is guided by the principle of the child’s best interests.
Spanish Civil Code
Article 154 of the Spanish Civil Code provides that the rights inherent to parental authority include that of “deciding the habitual place of residence of the minor, which may only be modified with the consent of both parents or by judicial authorization.”
According to Article 156 Spanish Civil Code, it is understood that the Code refers to decisions on relocation and changes of habitual residence of minor children as falling within the scope of the joint exercise of parental authority by both parents. For this reason, they must be adopted by common agreement, or by one of them alone with the consent of the other, except in situations of urgent need. In the event of disagreement, they will always be decided by a Spanish judge.
Law 1/1996, of 15 January, on the legal protection of minors
This law establishes that the child has the right to have their best interests considered as a priority in any decision affecting them. Article 9 of this law reinforces the right of the child to be heard in all judicial proceedings that concern them, provided they have sufficient judgement, and in all cases if they are over 12 years old.
International regulation
While this report focuses on domestic Spanish issues, it is important to mention that Spain is a party to several international conventions that can influence cases of international child relocation, such as Hague Convention 1996, Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111, and Hague Convention 1980. These instruments regulate co-operation between states to ensure the protection of children in the case of relocation.
Best interests of the child
The principle of the “best interests of the child” is the central axis in any judicial decision related to international child relocation. This principle is highlighted both in Spanish law and in numerous international instruments ratified by Spain.
Factors to consider
When assessing the best interests of the child in a relocation case, Spanish courts usually consider several factors, including the following.
Spanish Supreme Court jurisprudence on the best interests of the child
The Spanish Supreme Court has developed extensive jurisprudence regarding international child relocation, establishing clear criteria on how the principle of the best interests of the child should be applied in each case. The relocation must be based on objective and necessary circumstances and will never be admissible if the relocation is based on selfish and capricious motives of one of the parents.
As a reference, examples of relevant cases in which Spanish Supreme Court has outlined the criteria for applying the child’s best interests are set out here.
The decision adopted by the judge must make the protection of the best interests of the minor effective. The Supreme Court stated in its judgment of 28 September 2009 that “the regulations relating to the interests of minors have the characteristics of public order, and therefore must necessarily be observed by judges and courts in the decisions taken in relation to minors…”
In this matter, different rights clearly come into conflict. On the one hand the right of one parent to freely choose their place of residence, and on the other hand the right of the other parent to maintain a relationship with their minor children (Articles 90, 91, 94 and 103.1 of the Spanish Civil Code). Above all, the principle established in Article 39 of the Spanish Constitution, in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20 November 1989, ratified by Spain and in the Law 1/1996, of 15 January, recognises prevalence of the welfare and the best interests of the minor.
The Spanish Supreme Court, in the judgment dated 20 October 2014, which established jurisprudential doctrine, highlighted that “the change of residence abroad of the custodial parent may be judicially authorised only for the benefit of the minor children who move with that parent”, on the following basis: “The change of residence affects many things that have to do not only with moving abroad, including a different language, as in this case, but also with habits, schooling, customs, and even the travel expenses involved in moving to a country far from the child's environment, as this may prevent or make it difficult for both the child and the left-behind parent to travel in order to maintain contact with the child. In these cases, the interests of the child are paramount.”
In addition, the most relevant question is not whether the custodial parent’s freedom to choose residence can be restricted, but whether it is appropriate or inappropriate for the child to move to another country, which may entail a significant change in their social and parental environment, with potential problems of adaptation.
The concept of the interests of minors, as expressed by the Supreme Court in the judgment of 16 September 2016, has been developed in Law 8/2015, of 22 July, on the Modification of the Child and Adolescent Protection System, in the following terms.
Case Law in Spain on international child relocation
Spanish jurisprudence has addressed numerous cases of international child relocation, each with its particularities. Below is an analysis of some common situations and the resolutions adopted by the courts.
Relocation for employment reasons
One of the most common reasons for requesting international relocation is a job offer in another country. In these cases, courts evaluate both the professional opportunity and the parent’s ability to provide a better quality of life for the child in the new destination. However, mere economic improvement is not always sufficient to justify relocation if it may destabilise the child emotionally or if their adaptation to the new environment is uncertain.
Relocation for family reasons
In other cases, relocation is justified by the need of a parent to reunite with their extended family in another country or due to a new marriage. Courts consider the stability and emotional support that the extended family can offer the child in the new country. However, it is essential to demonstrate that these new circumstances will not significantly disrupt the child’s relationship with the parent remaining in Spain. This usually applies when the other parent has not attended to their parental duties for a long period of time.
Denial of relocation due to lack of child’s ties to the new destination
In some cases, courts have denied relocation because the child had no prior ties to the destination country, which could hinder their adaptation. If the child does not speak the language, has no family or friends in the new country, and it has not been demonstrated that the change will significantly improve their well-being, the courts may consider that the relocation is not in the child’s best interests.
Practical considerations for parents
For parents considering applying for international relocation with a child, it is crucial to take several practical aspects into account.
Preparation of a detailed plan
It is essential to prepare a detailed plan covering all aspects of the relocation, including residence, education, access to healthcare, and the visitation and communication plan with the parent staying in Spain. This plan must demonstrate that the child’s well-being has been carefully considered in every dimension.
Gather documentary evidence
Gathering all relevant documentation to support the application is crucial. This includes employment contracts, school acceptance letters, medical reports if necessary, and any other evidence that demonstrates that the relocation is in the child’s best interests.
Communication and negotiation
Whenever possible, it is advisable to try to resolve the conflict amicably through negotiation or family mediation. Reaching an agreement between the parents is not only less costly and stressful but can also result in a more flexible solution tailored to the needs of all involved.
Evaluation of the new country’s environment
Before making a final decision, it is important to conduct a thorough evaluation of the environment in the destination country, considering aspects such as the quality of the education system, social opportunities for the child, and ease of access to medical and psychological services.
Consideration of the child’s stability
The court will place great importance on the child’s stability, so any proposed change must be clearly aimed at improving their quality of life without causing significant disruption to their routine or important relationships.
Relocation cases involving a child who is under the guardianship of the competent authorities of another country (HCCH 1996)
The international relocation of minors under the custody of competent authorities, such as child protection services or juvenile courts, is a matter of increasing importance in international family law.
These cases typically involve complex situations where the protection of the child, their well-being, and respect for human rights are of paramount importance. Collaboration between states is essential as is finding an expert lawyer to ensure that decisions regarding the international relocation of minors are made in a manner that respects their rights, promotes their welfare and guarantees the legal status of the child in the state to which the child is to be relocated.
Many aspects have to be considered in these cases, such as the recognition of judgments issued by foreign courts, the adaptation of the child's custody to the domestic laws of the new jurisdiction, their incorporation into the educational system of the country where they will reside, guaranteeing the child adequate health care, and legalising their residence status in the new country.
Cases of international child abduction and wrongful retention
If one parent relocates the child to another country without the required consent of the other parent or retains the child unlawfully, the situation should be reported as a case of child abduction or wrongful retention.
The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction establishes mechanisms to ensure the return of children. As Spain is one of the signatory countries to this Convention, the process to be initiated before Spanish Central Authorities and Spanish Courts would be the subject of a further comprehensive report.
15th anniversary of the Washington Declaration on International Relocation
This year 2025 marks the 15th anniversary of the Washington Declaration on International Relocation, a landmark instrument that has significantly influenced the legal framework governing cross-border child relocation. The Declaration established key principles aimed at balancing the custodial rights of parents with the paramount consideration of the child’s best interests. Over the past decade and a half, courts worldwide have increasingly relied on these principles to assess relocation cases, ensuring that decisions reflect a comprehensive evaluation of familial, psychological, and legal factors.
However, despite its relevance, the Washington Declaration remains relatively unknown to judges and courts in many jurisdictions. This lack of awareness often leads to the inconsistent application of relocation principles, creating legal uncertainty for parents and children involved in international custody disputes. Greater efforts are needed to promote the recognition and implementation of this instrument in judicial decision-making.
The impact of international relocation on the identity of children: a legal and cultural dilemma
The issue of child identity in international relocation has gained increasing relevance in legal and psychological discussions. The movement of a child across borders not only affects their immediate environment but also poses a challenge to their sense of self, cultural ties, and national belonging. One of the central debates at the 2025 Washington Conference on the 15th Anniversary of the Washington Declaration on International Relocation focused precisely on this dilemma: whether international relocation jeopardises a child’s identity or, on the contrary, aligns with the reality of their multicultural upbringing.
i) The risk of identity erosion
When a child is relocated to a different country, they may experience a disruption in their linguistic, cultural, and familial connections. Courts must consider whether such a move could result in an identity crisis, detaching the child from their heritage, customs, and community. This perspective emphasises that a child’s identity is deeply rooted in their country of birth and early childhood experiences, making abrupt relocations potentially harmful to their psychological stability.
ii) The multicultural perspective
In contrast, many legal and psychological experts argue that today’s children are increasingly multicultural by nature, adapting to multiple cultural influences from an early age. In such cases, international relocation does not necessarily threaten their identity but rather enriches it. Many children of international families grow up with multiple languages, dual nationalities, and exposure to various cultural settings, allowing them to develop a fluid and adaptable identity. Under this approach, relocation should not be viewed as an identity loss but as an opportunity for cultural expansion.
iii) Legal considerations in relocation cases
When courts assess international relocation cases, the child’s right to identity should be a central consideration. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) recognises identity as a fundamental right (Article 8), emphasising the need to protect a child’s nationality, name, and family relations.
The Washington Conference 2025 highlighted the necessity of establishing international guidelines to ensure that courts integrate a balanced approach ‒ one that acknowledges both the importance of identity preservation and the benefits of a multicultural upbringing.
Summary
International child relocation is a complex issue that requires a careful and considered approach. In Spain, judicial decisions in this area are guided by the principle of the child’s best interests, which involves a detailed assessment of how the relocation will affect their well-being in all aspects. For foreign parents facing this type of situation, it is essential to be well-informed about the applicable legal framework and jurisprudence, and to be prepared to present a solid case demonstrating that the relocation is in the child’s best interests.
It is increasingly rare to find judicial decisions that allow the relocation of children born and raised in Spain to other countries after their parents' divorce. The really important relocation decision is often the one taken by the parents to leave their country of origin to start a new life in another country as part of a family life project, which must be continued if it guarantees the protection and well-being of the children.
Separating young children from one of their parents and taking them to a different country can have harmful consequences as they could lose their emotional attachment to that parent, a circumstance to which some parents do not attach any importance.
It is also worth noting the enormous complexity of this type of proceeding, in which the position of the judge is of special importance, as it is not a matter of resolving a mere legal dispute between private parties, but of adopting a decision in which human interests of a family nature converge ‒ a decision that becomes even more complex when the interests of minor children are at stake.
The change of country is of crucial importance for children. Therefore, the decisive factor in deciding on the matter is the interest of the minors, which is the primary concern, and not the preferences or wishes of their parents. In short, the interests of the parents, however legitimate they may be, are always subordinate to the interests of their minor children.
Lastly, if the change of country can mean removing the children from their parent’s life, from their usual family environment, school, etc ‒ exposing them to a new and different educational system and a new social and family environment, even if it is the country of origin of one of the parents ‒ and this occurs for reasons beyond the children’s control resulting from the break-up of their parents, without it having been proven that the relocation is convenient and beneficial for them, then such a move would be approached with caution. This is even more the case when the intended relocation would undoubtedly damage the relationship between the left-behind parent and the children, which would be contrary to the children’s best interests.
Calle Cister 8-1
29015 Malaga
Calle Velázquez 10
planta 2a
28001 Madrid
Spain
+34 676 385 403
mgm@maytegarciafamilylaw.com www.maytegarciafamilylaw.com