When separated parents live near each other, the cost of their child spending time in both homes is rarely, if ever, given any thought. However, once one parent moves several hours away, ordinary journeys can become a significant financial commitment.
The parent remaining behind may feel as though they are being asked to pay for a decision they opposed, while on the other hand, the relocating parent may struggle with the expense of establishing a new home and believe there is little left to contribute.
The real expense of keeping contact going
Travel costs are often the most obvious concern, particularly where regular visits involve long drives or expensive bus or train tickets. However, simply calculating the price of the child’s ticket can substantially understate the costs; for example, a younger child may need an adult to accompany them, which can mean paying for the accompanying parent’s return journey as well. And if the timetable makes travelling home that evening unrealistic, an overnight stay may be necessary. Accommodation then becomes part of the cost of making the visit happen, rather than an optional extra.
School holidays can also create a different difficulty, and while a parent may welcome longer periods with their child, they may be unable to take annual leave throughout the visit. Holiday-club fees could therefore become necessary for those arrangements to work.
In addition, a parent who spends much of Friday and Sunday driving to and from the child’s home has less time available to enjoy with them, and having to leave work early to make the trip may also mean losing earnings.
The significance of choosing to move
It is understandable for a parent to argue that whoever created the distance should take greater responsibility for overcoming the costs. However, responsibility cannot sensibly be decided by identifying who changed their address and stopping there. The reasons for moving and the resources available afterwards both matter. A move connected with employment, for example, may increase a parent’s ability to support the child, even though it creates additional travel.
The same considerations can arise when the parent who moves is the one with whom the child spends weekends. It would be unwise for that parent to assume the other must now deliver the child to their new home regardless of the distance.
Refusing costs and withholding contact
Without an agreement or court order establishing liability, one parent cannot simply present the other with a bill and assume it must be paid. However, refusing to discuss any contribution can leave an important practical problem unresolved.
There is also a distinction between genuinely being unable to afford a journey and refusing to assist because of resentment about the move. Evidence of reasonable alternatives, and a willingness to consider them, can help clarify what is actually preventing contact.
Equally, a dispute over reimbursement should not become a way of making the child’s time with a parent conditional on payment. Where an existing order has become unworkable, the appropriate response is to seek advice and address variation promptly; abandoning or breaching its terms can lead to enforcement proceedings.
A recent relocation decision
In the case of The Mother v The Father [2026] EWFC 281 (B), decided on 10 September 2026, the family court allowed a mother to relocate to Scotland with her six-year-old child. The final arrangements provided for the child to travel to Nottingham for two weekends out of four, with the father travelling to Scotland for another weekend. Substantial school-holiday time was also provided.
Here, the final order required the mother to contribute £250 each month towards the father’s travel costs and £5,000 annually towards travel and holiday-club costs arising from the relocation. The decision shows how practical and financial provision can support continued contact after a significant move.
Distance can change the shape of contact
A longer journey does more than increase the fuel bill and can alter what is reasonable to expect from a child, particularly during the school week. An arrangement involving overnight stays may work well between neighbouring towns but become exhausting after a move several hundred miles away. A child returning late on Sunday might begin the school week tired, even where both parents have made every effort to manage the journey carefully.
Sometimes the answer is to reconsider the pattern of visits; longer stays during school holidays may offer more relaxed time together, while occasional visits near the child’s new home could reduce the travelling to and from home.
What the court can decide
Where parents cannot agree, the court can determine the arrangements and address the practical provisions needed to make them work. This may include specifying responsibility for collection and return, alongside appropriate conditions concerning contributions to contact expenses.
The court’s task is to assess arrangements that align with the child’s welfare, rather than deciding which adult has the stronger grievance about the move. The relocation decision discussed above demonstrates that financial contributions can form part of the conditions supporting contact, although the appropriate order will depend on the individual case.
Parents will usually need to attend a mediation information and assessment meeting (MIAM) before making a court application, unless an exemption applies. Where suitable, mediation can turn a disagreement into a helpful discussion about journeys and payment. An agreed arrangement can then be put before the court for approval as a consent order.
If a parent is contributing towards travel expenses, both should understand when tickets will be booked and when payment is due. They should also consider how cancellations will be handled, so that a missed train or late arrival does not immediately become another dispute.
Although a move away may change family life, its financial consequences need attention before contact starts to unravel. An arrangement that looks generous from a time shared point of view achieves little if the journeys cannot be funded. Addressing such issues early gives the child a better chance of enjoying time with both parents, without every visit becoming another battleground.