Children and eviction: what every landlord needs to know about children’s rights

When eviction is more than just a legal procedure

Imagine: a tenant is seriously failing to meet their obligations. There are drug-related offences, dangerous situations in and around the property, and the tenancy agreement is no longer tenable. As a landlord or housing association, you want to take action. You initiate eviction proceedings — and rightly so. But then it turns out that there are also minor children living in the property. What does that mean for your position as a landlord? And how does the court deal with this?

On 28 November 2025, the Supreme Court ruled on precisely this situation. The ruling provides private landlords and housing associations with a clear framework. In this article, we explain what was decided, what that means in practice, and what steps you can expect as a landlord.

The international convention as a legal compass

Central to this ruling is Article 3(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). This provision stipulates that in all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. That may sound abstract, but it has direct consequences for eviction proceedings in the Netherlands.

The question at hand was: how much weight does the child’s best interests carry in an eviction claim? Must a judge automatically refuse eviction if children are living in the property? And what role does the landlord play in this?

The Supreme Court’s answer is nuanced but clear: the best interests of the child do not constitute an automatic veto against eviction, but they do merit particular weight in the assessment.

The judge’s role: active and inquisitive

An important aspect of the ruling is the active role the judge must play. The judge is obliged — even without the parties requesting it — to investigate whether the sought eviction affects minor children. This is also referred to as ex officio investigation: the judge does not wait passively, but asks the relevant questions themselves.

In practical terms, this means that the judge will question the landlord about the possibilities for alternative accommodation. As a landlord, it is wise to be well prepared for this. As a housing association, do you have other properties available? Are there accommodation options? This kind of information can play a decisive role in the outcome of the proceedings.

In so-called default proceedings — where the tenant fails to appear — the judge is entirely dependent on the information provided by the landlord or which the landlord can reasonably ascertain. The judge has the power to issue instructions for this purpose under Article 22(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Rv). What the judge is not required to do: contact the local authority or social services themselves, as they are not parties to the proceedings.

Practical tip for landlords: When filing an eviction claim, always ensure you provide information about the family situation in the property, including the presence of children and any alternative housing options. This strengthens your position and prevents delays in the proceedings.

The assessment framework: three pillars

The Supreme Court has outlined a clear assessment framework. This framework rests on three pillars.

1. Preventing homelessness and family separation

Homelessness of a child — protected by Article 17(3) of the CRC — and the forced separation of parents and children — protected by Article 9 of the CRC — are situations that must, in principle, be prevented. However, this does not mean that eviction is off the table. The primary responsibility for preventing these consequences lies with the parents themselves and with the government, not with the landlord.

2. The tenant’s conduct does not affect the best interests of the child

This is a crucial point in practice: however serious the tenant’s misconduct may be, that behaviour must not diminish the weight of the child’s best interests. The tenant’s culpability does play a role in determining whether the breach justifies termination of the tenancy agreement — but it must not be used to relativise the interests of the children. After all, children are not parties to the tenancy agreement and cannot do anything about their parents’ behaviour.

3. The interests of the landlord and local residents

The landlord’s interest in eviction stands in contrast to the best interests of the child. That interest is partly determined by the nature and seriousness of the breach. Examples include serious nuisance, drug-related activities or dangerous situations. The interests of local residents in a safe and liveable residential environment may also be taken into account in favour of the landlord. Repeated misconduct or long-term breaches also strengthen the landlord’s position.

Concurrent administrative proceedings

In some cases, administrative proceedings run concurrently with the civil eviction proceedings. Examples include a closure under Section 13b(1) of the Opium Act or Section 174a of the Local Government Act. In such cases, it may be advisable to await the outcome of those administrative proceedings before the civil court makes a decision. Whether this is appropriate depends on the circumstances: how far have the administrative proceedings progressed, and how urgent are the interests at stake in the eviction?

Practical tip: Always inform the court of any ongoing administrative proceedings concerning the property. This may influence the civil proceedings and gives the court a complete picture of the situation.

What options does the judge have?

The judge has several tools at their disposal to take the interests of children into account, even if they grant the eviction order. The availability of alternative accommodation is an important consideration in this regard.

Specifically, the judge may:

● Grant a longer eviction period, so that there is more time to find alternative accommodation.

● Postpone the decision, to give the parties the opportunity to arrange alternative accommodation.

● Attach conditions to the eviction order, for example the requirement that demonstrable alternative accommodation is available before the eviction takes place.

This gives the judge scope to tailor the decision: the eviction may be granted, but in a way that does justice to the vulnerable position of the children involved.

What does this mean for landlords and housing associations?

The Supreme Court’s ruling does not fundamentally change the rules, but it does refine them. Eviction remains possible — even if children live in the property. However, as a landlord, you must take the following into account:

● The court will actively ask questions about the presence of children and alternative accommodation.

● The larger your housing portfolio, the more the court may expect from you in terms of alternative housing options.

● A well-substantiated claim — taking the family situation into account — increases the likelihood of a swift ruling.

● Be prepared for a longer processing time if children are involved.

Housing associations, in particular, are more likely to be held to account for the availability of alternative accommodation than a private landlord, due to their size and social role.

Conclusion: the best interests of the child as an integral part of the eviction procedure

The Supreme Court’s ruling makes it clear that the best interests of the child are a structural part of any eviction procedure involving minors. Those interests carry significant weight — but they do not constitute an absolute veto. The court carefully balances all the interests involved: those of the child, the tenant, the landlord and the local community.

As a landlord or housing association, it is wise to respond to this proactively. Ensure your claim is well documented, be transparent about the family situation and consider alternative housing options in advance. This increases the likelihood of a successful procedure — whilst also acting in a socially responsible manner.

Do you have questions about an ongoing eviction procedure or would you like to know how best to substantiate your claim? Contact a specialist tenancy law solicitor.

Frequently Asked Questions (Q&A)

Can a landlord evict a tenant if there are children living in the property?

Yes, eviction is also possible if there are minor children living in the property. The child’s best interests carry significant weight in the court’s assessment, but do not automatically prevent the eviction claim from being granted.

Must the court always investigate whether there are children living in the property?

Yes. The court is obliged to investigate of its own motion — that is, on its own initiative — whether the eviction affects children and what is in their best interests. This applies even if the parties do not mention this themselves.

What must a landlord provide if there are children living in the property?

The landlord will be asked by the court about the options for alternative accommodation. It is advisable to provide this information at the time of the summons or the application.

Does the tenant’s misconduct affect the children’s best interests?

No. However serious the tenant’s misconduct may be, this must not diminish the weight of the children’s best interests. Children are not parties to the tenancy agreement and cannot be held responsible for their parents’ behaviour.

Can the court postpone the eviction due to the presence of children?

Yes. The court has several options: it may grant a longer eviction period, stay the decision, or attach conditions to the eviction order — for example, the requirement that alternative accommodation is available.

Does it matter whether the landlord is a housing association or a private individual?

Yes, it can make a difference. The court may expect more from a housing association with a large housing portfolio in terms of alternative accommodation options than from a private landlord with one or a few properties.

What is the CRC and why is it relevant in eviction proceedings?

The CRC is the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 3(1) of this Convention stipulates that in all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. Dutch courts are obliged to apply this Convention, including in civil tenancy proceedings.

What happens if, in addition to the civil proceedings, there is also an administrative law procedure underway?

In that case, the judge may choose to await the outcome of the administrative proceedings. Whether this is appropriate depends on the stage of those proceedings and the urgency of the interests involved.