By Sally Ann Vazquez-Castellanos
Published on June 14, 2025. Revised on July 16, 2025.
When a child travels abroad for what seems like a short-term visit, most parents never imagine they might not return. But in international custody disputes, even well-intended plans can turn into high-conflict legal battles—and sometimes, criminal abduction.
California family courts understand these risks, and so should any parent involved in a move-away or international travel dispute.
A Realistic Scenario: When a Vacation Turns into a Custody Crisis
Imagine a California parent agrees to let their child visit grandparents in another country for a two-week vacation. The trip begins smoothly. But the return flight is missed, communication stalls, and eventually the parent discovers the child has been enrolled in school abroad—with no intent to return.
This is not just a custody issue. It may constitute wrongful retention under international law and a crime under California law.
Family Abduction and California Penal Code § 278.5
Under California Penal Code § 278.5, it is a crime for any person, including a parent or relative, to “take, entice away, keep, withhold, or conceal a child and maliciously deprive a lawful custodian of a right to custody, or a person of a right to visitation.”¹
This law applies whether or not a formal custody order exists, as long as the person knows—or reasonably should know—that their actions deprive another person of lawful custody or visitation. Penalties range from one year in county jail (misdemeanor) to up to three years in state prison (felony).² Obtaining a custody order in a foreign court after the fact is not a defense.³
Parental Alienation and the Child’s Right to Meaningful Contact
In In re Marriage of LaMusga, the California Supreme Court emphasized that trial courts must consider whether a proposed relocation would significantly harm the child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent.⁴ Where there is a risk of alienation, courts may deny relocation or impose strict safeguards to preserve the child’s bond with both parents.
The Hague Convention: Not Always a Guarantee
The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction provides a process for returning children wrongfully removed or retained across borders.⁵ However, the Convention’s effectiveness depends on:
Whether the foreign country is a Hague signatory; Whether the country actively enforces return orders; Whether the country honors U.S. custody decisions in practice.
Even among Hague partner countries, compliance can be uneven.⁶ In non-Hague countries, California courts are far more likely to deny international move-away requests.⁷
What California Courts Say About Foreign Enforcement
In In re Marriage of Condon, the court denied a mother’s request to relocate her children to Australia, emphasizing her failure to demonstrate that California custody orders would be enforced there.⁸ The court found that without credible foreign enforcement mechanisms, the child’s relationship with the father would be at serious risk.
In C.T. v. Superior Court (2025) (pending publication), the court reaffirmed that even if California retains jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, that authority is meaningless if the foreign court refuses to comply with California orders.
Why Virtual Visitation Is Not Enough
Some parents suggest video calls (Zoom, FaceTime) as a substitute for in-person parenting. However, courts have found that virtual visitation is no replacement for consistent, physical presence. In emotionally sensitive or high-conflict cases, digital contact may be interrupted or manipulated—especially where alienation is already a concern.
Mirror Custody Orders: A Tool, Not a Cure-All
A mirror custody order is a foreign court order that replicates the terms of a California custody judgment. It allows the foreign country to enforce the same terms, ideally making the California order binding abroad.
In Condon, the court noted that the absence of a mirror order—and the lack of proof it could be obtained—undermined the relocating parent’s case.⁹ Mirror orders are not guaranteed. Some countries will not recognize them. Others may modify them under local law or require mutual parental consent.
When representing a client seeking or contesting international relocation:
Request judicial notice of enforcement risks in non-Hague jurisdictions. Cite Condon and LaMusga to show the danger of non-enforceable orders and potential child detriment. Engage international counsel early to confirm whether a mirror order is available and effective in the destination country.
Preventive Legal Tools to Consider
California courts may also order:
Passport restrictions under Family Code § 3048;
Travel bonds to guarantee return or cover enforcement expenses;
Geographic and temporal limits on travel;
Mirror orders as a condition for visitation or relocation;
Expert affidavits from foreign counsel about enforcement capacity.
These tools are essential where enforcement risks are high and the child’s relationship with the non-relocating parent is at stake.
Conclusion
International custody matters require more than paperwork—they demand foresight, risk assessment, and enforceable planning. Without a credible mirror order, judicial safeguards, or Hague cooperation, a parent may lose access to their child across borders with little recourse. Whether you are seeking or opposing a relocation, consulting an attorney with experience in international custody enforcement can protect your rights and your child’s best interests.
Disclaimer
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading or relying on this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please consult a qualified California family law attorney to evaluate your specific situation.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Shareholder and Attorney, Sally Castellanos at Castellanos & Associates, APLC, Industrious at Pasaroyo in Pasadena, 251 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 800, Los Angeles, California 91101. Telephone (805) 732-2376 or (323) 655-2105.
Legal Footnotes
1. Cal. Penal Code § 278.5(a).
2. Id.
3. Cal. Penal Code § 278.5(c).
4. In re Marriage of LaMusga, 32 Cal. 4th 1072 (2004).
5. Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Oct. 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11,670.
6. U.S. Dep’t of State, Annual Report on International Child Abduction (2024), [travel.state.gov].
7. LaMusga, supra note 4, at 1097.
8. In re Marriage of Condon, 62 Cal. App. 4th 533, 555 (1998).
9. Id. at 558–59.
Resources for Parents and Professionals
U.S. Department of State – International Parental Child Abduction: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/International-Parental-Child-Abduction.html
Hague Convention Full Text and Country List: https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=24
National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC): https://www.missingkids.org
California Courts Self-Help Center – Custody and Visitation: https://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-custody.htm
California Penal Code § 278.5: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
It's Personal: Children, Privacy, Technology and the Law 
You must be logged in to post a comment.