Relieved, my client takes a deep breath. We stare at a statement of proceedings indicating that the parties have reached an agreement to end the case in accordance with the attached parenting plan, that the requests are withdrawn, and that each party bears their own legal costs.
The man, who has no social safety net on the island, has felt unhappy since his marriage to the Curaçaoan beauty fell apart three years ago. He harbors a deep-seated desire, after living and working on the island for fifteen years, to return to the Netherlands. With the statement of proceedings in hand, nothing stood in the way of him moving back to the Netherlands with his children—a long-cherished wish now on the verge of becoming reality.
Earlier, the judge had denied in summary proceedings the request for substitute consent to relocate to the Netherlands. Consideration was given to the fact that the minors were born and raised in the Curaçaoan society. Moving to another country is already a significant change, but even more so because it would mean the minors would no longer have near-daily physical contact with their mother as they do now. The judge also took into account that the man had a job locally while he had no substitute employment in the Netherlands, meaning he would, for the time being, be dependent on family or social benefits for his livelihood. At the time of the summary proceedings, the circumstances were thus not compelling enough for the judge to rule that the man’s decision to emigrate needed to be realized at that moment.
Now, in the parenting plan attached to the statement of proceedings, topics regarding how the parties will exercise parental authority over the minors before and after the man moves to the Netherlands are addressed. For example, it is agreed that the children must call their mother daily at a set time via videocall.
The woman was initially in no way willing to cooperate with the man’s plan to relocate with the children to the Netherlands. To lose as little time as possible, I simultaneously filed, along with the summary proceedings, a main case request for substitute consent for relocation with the children to the Netherlands (and also for changing the minors’ primary residence), taking into account the chance that the summary proceedings request might be denied. This ensured that a hearing date for the main case would not be delayed too long if the summary request was rejected. After all, the man wanted to move during the Christmas holidays, as his original plan to move in the summer had been thwarted by the judge’s denial in summary proceedings.
That the parties reached an agreement without a court order was thanks to the judge, who steered the parties in the right direction with his creative suggestions. During the first oral hearing of the request for substitute consent, the judge instructed the parties to meet at a neutral location to discuss three detailed proposals from the man regarding interaction between the children and the woman after the relocation to the Netherlands. The judge also cautiously indicated to the woman that the man had the right to build a (new) life in another country. The door to his new future was thus not completely closed, despite the woman’s initial reluctance.
Although the parties did not immediately reach an agreement regarding visitation schedules and other important matters, such as the amount of monthly child support, the woman eventually informed the children—without obligation—that the move to the Netherlands with their father would take place. When the judge learned of this, he expressed his great pleasure that the parents were able to find a solution together, which was extremely valuable for all involved. The requests for substitute consent and change of primary residence could be withdrawn, leaving only the requests regarding care and visitation arrangements (distinguished into periods before and after the relocation).
However, in our opinion, the judge placed a great deal of trust in the positive outcome, and the man was not willing to withdraw his case until he had the signed consent forms in his possession. Eventually, both parties filed a petition requesting a second and final hearing. The judge did not automatically grant the request for a second oral hearing, as his schedule was busy and there was little court availability in the short term. Therefore, the judge gave the parties an extraordinary instruction to hold a “four-way meeting,” promising to find a slot in his overbooked schedule if the parties conducted such a meeting.
The four-way meeting ultimately proved successful, as both parties realized that the relocation could no longer be blocked. They were also aware that compromise was necessary, thanks to the proverbial “pinpricks” the judge had subtly and carefully administered during the first oral hearing.
In short, this was a case in which, thanks to a proactive and decisive judge, the right questions, appropriate instructions, and small nudges led the parties to come together at the sharp end. Reflecting on why achieving a joint solution was so valuable according to the judge, I believe the real harm occurs the moment parties end up in court. It is reassuring to know that even at that stage, it does not have to be too late. Of course, all parties have a role and responsibility to play in that process.