Can a Child Receive a Gift of Property from Abroad?

Can a Child Receive a Gift of Property from Abroad?

Parenting Across Jurisdictions

Grace Lawrence considers when the English Family Court will make an order authorising a gift of foreign property to a child who is habitually resident in England or Wales. This article was first published in Issue 1 of the 2026 Step Journal.

Re B and Re N

Estate planning for international families is inevitably complex. One particular complexity arises when inter vivos and testamentary gifts of foreign property are made to children who are habitually resident in England or Wales. In such instances, estate planning collides with family law.

As readers will be aware, certain jurisdictions require the beneficiary of the gift to formally accept it and often parents can do so on a child’s behalf. However, where the child is habitually resident in England or Wales, the parents will generally have to seek the approval of the English or Welsh court by applying for a Specific Issue Order (SIO) under s.8 of the Children Act 1989. The case of Re N,[1] in which the author acted for the applicant parents, provides one such example. The applicant father intended to gift his minor child a share of a property in Switzerland. Swiss law, by reference to the 1996 Hague Convention,[2] required an English court order authorising the parents to accept the gift on their child’s behalf, England being the ‘contracting state of the habitual residence of the child’ under art.4.

Where a gift is being made to a child, the court must assess whether it is in the child’s best interests to receive it.

Legal Framework

An SIO is an order of the Family Court ‘giving directions for the purpose of determining a specific question which has arisen, or which may arise, in connection with any aspect of parental responsibility for a child’.[3] ‘Parental responsibility’ is in turn defined as ‘all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property’.[4] This extends to ‘the right of the guardian to receive … property … which the child is entitled to receive or recover’.[5]

When considering whether to make an SIO, the child’s welfare must be the court’s ‘paramount consideration’.[6] Therefore, where a gift is being made to a child, the court must assess whether it is in the child’s best interests to receive it. The court must have regard to the ‘welfare checklist’, which inter alia includes the ‘ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in light of his age and understanding)’.[7] This means that if the child is of a certain age (say, 12 and above) and sufficiently mature, the child’s consent to the gift will be relevant.

In Re N, Justice Peel made the SIO sought by the parents, authorising them to accept the gift of a share of the Swiss property on their child’s behalf. He concluded:

‘In the circumstances, I consider that this application falls squarely within the exercise of parental responsibility as outlined in the above cases. I have taken into account the welfare checklist and the overarching requirements of the paramountcy principle. I am satisfied that what is sought is clearly in N’s best interests and I will make the order accordingly’.[8]

Procedure

The procedure for applications of this nature is set out in Re B.[9] In that case, the applicant mother wanted to accept a share of a French property on her son’s behalf, which he had inherited under French succession law following his father’s death.

In summary:

• The application must be made on Form C100, with a witness statement in support setting out the circumstances in full. (In the author’s experience, it is useful to attach a letter from the foreign lawyer dealing with the gift explaining why the intervention of the English court is necessary.)
• Every person whom the applicant believes to have parental responsibility for the child must be made a respondent to the application.
• The child will not generally need to be joined to the case, unless they object to the application, but their views should be sought informally by the applicant.
• If there is a third party who is legally or beneficially interested in the relevant property (e.g. perhaps the gift is being made to the child and their adult sibling), they should be notified of the application, invited to confirm whether they oppose it and reminded that it is open to them to apply to be joined to the proceedings.

Practice points and practical considerations

Practitioners should exercise caution where the gifted property has associated liabilities. This will impact on the court’s assessment of whether receiving the gift is in the child’s best interests. There will need to be a clear plan for how the liabilities will be met. In Re N, Peel J noted that there was no prejudice to the child because the father had agreed to meet the running costs of the Swiss property going forward and to provide indemnities to the child.[10]

It is important to consider what consequential directions will be necessary to give effect to the gift. For example, the author understands that in Switzerland it is necessary to sign a ‘donation contract’. The English court order should expressly authorise the parent to take the necessary practical steps, i.e. sign the donation contract and/or grant a power of attorney on the child’s behalf in the foreign jurisdiction. The English court order will also need to record permission for the applicant to disclose the order to the foreign court and to the notary or professionals dealing with the transaction.

To obtain the child’s consent informally, it is helpful to arrange a meeting between the child and a suitably trained professional (a child-inclusive mediator or private social worker) who has experience in ascertaining children’s views. That professional can then formally record the child’s consent in a letter addressed to the court, which can be attached to the application.

There will be circumstances where it is desirable for the parent not only to accept the gift on a child’s behalf but also to achieve a sale of the property. In Re B, Peel J concluded that selling a property on a child’s behalf fell ‘within the parameters of the exercise of parental responsibility’[11] and that he therefore had the power to authorise it. He assessed what was in the child’s best interests and authorised the applicant mother to enter into a contract for sale on the child’s behalf:

‘I am persuaded that, when considering the paramountcy of B’s welfare, it is in his best interests to grant the authorisation sought. The value of B’s share is substantial and there are no known debts. The proposed sale is at a price of EUR320,000 such that B’s 50 per cent share would be EUR160,000 less a pro rata contribution to sale costs. At present, B can make no meaningful use of his share of the property. There is no significant link with France anymore; the family barely visit the property. B’s family life is in England. B himself seeks a sale of the property, so as to assist him at university in due course, and explore other investment opportunities, including purchasing a rental property in this country. Rental income defrays some of the running costs, but does not provide a meaningful net income. A ready and willing purchaser has been identified and the evidence suggests that if this opportunity to sell is not grasped, it may become more difficult to secure a sale.’[12]

Practitioners should be aware that applying for an SIO in these circumstances is not a quick or inexpensive process. The court is generally expected to list the application for a single court hearing rather than deciding the matter on paper.[13]  Helpfully, the cases of Re B and Re N have brought clarity to the scope of SIOs in this context and to the procedure that is intended to safeguard the financial interests of children.

**

• [1]Re N [2024] EWFC 141
• [2]The Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children

• [3]s.8(1) of the Children Act 1989
• [4]s.3(1) of the Children Act 1989
• [5]s.3(3) of the Children Act 1989
• [6]s.1(1) of the Children Act 1989
• [7]s.1(3) of the Children Act 1989
• [8]Re N [2024] EWFC 141, para.7

• [9]Re B [2022] EWFC 7. In particular, paras.15–26.
• [10]Re N [2024] EWFC 141, para.6
• [11]Re B [2022] EWFC 7, para.11
• [12]Re B [2022] EWFC 7, para.13

• [13]As confirmed in Re B [2022] EWFC 7, para.24

**