A child’s travel abroad and the issue of the necessary identity documents

Article 127a of the Family Code provides that the parents decide by mutual agreement whether their child may travel abroad and obtain the necessary identity documents. If they do not reach agreement under paragraph 1, paragraph 2 entrusts the dispute to the district court for the child’s current address. This is a contested matter in which the court determines the arrangements. The child’s interests are always the primary consideration. The Supreme Court of Cassation has held that unrestricted permission to take a child out of Bulgaria without one parent’s consent is not in the child’s interests: Judgment No. 33 of 25.02.2014 in civil case No. 143/2013, Third Civil Division; Judgment No. 116 of 16.04.2014 in civil case No. 5156/2013, Fourth Civil Division; and Judgment No. 234 of 30.05.2012 in civil case No. 1580/2011, Fourth Civil Division. Point 1 of Interpretative Judgment No. 1 of 3.07.2017 in interpretative case No. 1/2016 of the General Assembly of the Civil College takes the same position.

The assessment must reflect the definition of the child’s best interests in paragraph 1, point 5 of the supplementary provisions of the Child Protection Act. The listed considerations are the child’s wishes and feelings; physical, mental and emotional needs; age, sex, background and other characteristics; danger or harm already suffered or likely to be suffered; the parents’ ability to care for the child; the consequences for the child of a change in circumstances; and any other relevant circumstances.

According to point 1 of Interpretative Judgment No. 1 of 3.07.2017 in case No. 1/2016, travel must serve a specific interest of the child. Permission should therefore cover a specified period and a particular country or ascertainable group of countries (for example, EU Member States). It may allow an unlimited number of trips during a specified period, but again only to specified countries. Permission unrestricted in both time and destination does not adequately protect the child: without an advance assessment of the place, conditions and environment in which the child will stay, a specific and real risk cannot be assessed. Article 127a(1) also indicates that the court decides only a particular dispute that has arisen between the parents. It cannot replace parental consent once and for all by authorising travel anywhere at any time.

This publication is not a lawyer’s opinion or advice on a particular situation or person. The author makes no claim to cover judicial authorisation in place of parental consent to a child’s travel abroad exhaustively. For legal assistance in a similar case, consult a civil lawyer specialising in family law.