What happens when a landlord demands eviction from a house in which minor children also live? Must the court take the interests of these children into account when deciding whether, for example, parents have caused serious nuisance or committed criminal offences, and how far does the court's responsibility extend to actively investigating this interest? In response to preliminary questions from the District Court of North Holland on this matter, on 28 November 2025 the Supreme Court provided clarity on the meaning of Article 3(1) of the CRC (Convention on the Rights of the Child) in eviction proceedings (zie: ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1799).

What happened?
A housing association rented a property to a family with two minor children. During the term of the contract, the housing association received complaints from neighbours about noise nuisance and the smell of cannabis, among other things. The general terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement included a clause stating that the tenant was not allowed to cause any nuisance or disturbance to neighbours or local residents and that the tenant was not allowed to grow cannabis or engage in other activities that are punishable under the Opium Act.

After discussions with the tenants and local residents, agreements were made. Subsequently, a search of the property revealed hard drugs, ammunition and a firearm, among other things. The man was arrested and placed in detention.

Although the mayor initially wanted to close the property for a period of three months, this was not done in the interests of the children, and the man was given a penalty order to prevent a recurrence. After a second police raid, during which drugs and ammunition were found again, the mayor informed the tenants of his intention to close the property for one month.

The housing association sought eviction of the property in summary proceedings, citing its zero-tolerance policy and its responsibility for safety and liveability in the neighbourhood. According to the housing association, its interest in evicting the property outweighed the tenants' interest in retaining the property.

Art. 3 CRC (Convention on the Rights of the Child)
The preliminary relief judge noted that the application of the so-called zero tolerance policy in tenancy disputes, both by housing associations and in (first instance) case law, is considered problematic in cases involving families with (young) children and that judges deal with this matter in very different ways.

This is undeniably linked to the fact that the presence of children in the home means that the acceptability of the eviction sought in response to the tenant's offence must be assessed in the light of Article 3 of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, a standard whose content and scope are by no means clear in themselves.

Article 3(1) of the CRC stipulates that in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

Preliminary questions
The preliminary relief judge therefore saw reason to refer the following preliminary questions to the Supreme Court:

Assessment criterion
1. Can the criterion included in Article 3(1) of the CRC be interpreted in such a way that it provides a basis for assessment in specific cases? If so, how should it be interpreted?
2. What role does culpable behaviour on the part of the parents play in this?
3. Does that criterion constitute an instruction, or at least a justification, for the court to also assess the quality of the care facility?

Investigation
4. How active should the court be? What should it investigate, if necessary ex officio?
5. What can the court expect from the parties in terms of the provision of information?
6. In the cases concerned, is the judge free, after obtaining the consent of the parties, to obtain information ex officio from municipalities and social services? Given the privacy sensitivity of such matters, can Article 3(1) of the CRC provide a sufficient basis for this? If not, how should this privacy sensitivity be dealt with?
7. To what extent should the judge actively involve other authorities in his investigation? (This could include the Child Protection Board or the family guardian in the case of a child protection order.)
8. In cases where administrative proceedings are also being conducted, is it advisable to suspend the civil eviction case until the housing association concerned, as an interested party in the administrative proceedings, has had the opportunity to submit the municipal file?

Decision and reasoning
9. Given the answers to the above questions, is the judge free (under certain circumstances) to allow the eviction on condition that adequate accommodation is provided for the children concerned? And is he free to comment on the question of who should arrange that accommodation? If so, how much leeway should the judge allow the landlord in this regard: in terms of maintaining family ties, the nature, temporary nature and duration of the provision, and the period within which it must be realised (given the uncertainty inherent in such an arrangement)?

These preliminary questions therefore raise the issue of whether guidelines can be derived from Article 3 of the CRC for the assessment of a claim for eviction from a dwelling in which children also live, how active the court may and must be in its investigation of the interests of children involved in the eviction and of the possibilities for alternative accommodation, what the court may expect from the parties in this regard, and what modalities it has at its disposal to take adequate care of children into account in its decision.

Response by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that Article 3(1) of the CRC implies that, when the judge assesses whether the tenant's failure to fulfil his obligations justifies termination of the tenancy agreement, the interests of children living in the rented property must be taken into account as a “primary consideration”. This means that they are given high priority. The interests of a child include his or her right to housing and his or her right not to be separated from his or her parents. Although these interests carry considerable weight, they do not necessarily prevail; they must be weighed against other interests, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.

The circumstances to be taken into account include the possibility of alternative housing. Homelessness of a child is not considered socially acceptable and, in principle, separation of parents and children should be prevented. However, such a consequence, or the possibility thereof, does not always mean that a claim for eviction must be rejected. After all, preventing such consequences is not primarily the responsibility of the landlord, but of the parents and the government, while the landlord must also take into account the interests of third parties in certain circumstances. In this context, however, it may be taken into account whether the landlord rents out several properties and has them available for rent, for example because it is a housing association.

The degree of culpability of the tenant's behaviour that gives rise to a claim for termination and eviction from the rented property is one of the circumstances that are taken into account in assessing whether the shortcoming in question justifies termination. However, that behaviour and the degree of culpability do not detract from the importance of the interests of the children living with the tenant.

The interests of tenants and their children are weighed against the interests of the landlord in termination and eviction. The weight to be given to the latter interests depends in part on the nature and seriousness of the tenant's shortcomings. In this case, these shortcomings concern nuisance, violations of the Opium Act and illegal possession of weapons in the home. The tenant is therefore failing in his obligation to behave as a good tenant (Section 7:213 of the Civil Code) and, under certain circumstances, the landlord is obliged to do everything in his power to end the nuisance or danger to his other tenants and other local residents, which may also include children. The interest of local residents in a liveable and safe environment then adds weight to the landlord's interest in eviction. Repeated failure by the tenant or prolonged failure by the tenant may also add weight to the landlord's interest in eviction.

judge's duty to investigate
In principle, it is up to the tenant facing an eviction claim to argue that the alleged failure to comply with the tenancy agreement does not justify termination of that agreement, and to present the relevant facts and circumstances in that context. These facts and circumstances include the fact that the intended eviction will also affect a child or children.

However, the instruction given to the court in Article 3(1) of the CRC means that, if necessary, the court must examine ex officio whether the eviction sought will also affect children and what is in their best interests in the given circumstances. If necessary, the court may make use of its power to give instructions (Article 22(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure). In default cases, the court will have to rely on information that the landlord has at his disposal or can reasonably obtain. However, if the landlord does not have such information and, despite making an effort to obtain it, is unable to do so, this does not in itself constitute grounds for rejecting the landlord's claims.

If the information provided shows that the intended eviction will also affect children, the court will have to ask the parties, or at least the landlord, about the possibilities of alternative accommodation. The information that the court may require from the landlord about these possibilities depends on the circumstances of the case. In this context, more can generally be expected from a housing association than from a private landlord.

Article 3(1) of the CRC requires the court to take the interests of the child into account. The provision does not indicate that, in fulfilling this requirement, the court should not rely on information provided by the parties, or one of them, when assessing disputes such as the one at hand, but should also, outside the oral proceedings, consult authorities that are not involved in the proceedings, such as the municipality, authorities involved in child protection measures or other social services. Art. 3(1) of the CRC therefore does not provide a sufficient basis for this. Nor is there any basis for this in national law. Such a basis is required, among other things, in view of the privacy interests of the parties and the interests of persons not involved in the proceedings. Nor is it the task of the court to turn to such authorities outside the oral proceedings, whether or not with the consent of the parties. However, the court will be able to make use of its procedural powers, such as ordering an expert report.

If, with regard to the property to which the eviction claim relates, an administrative law procedure is also being followed, on the basis of Section 13b(1) of the Opium Act or Section 174a of the Municipalities Act, it may be appropriate to await the outcome of that procedure in the eviction proceedings. Whether this is the case depends on the circumstances of the case, including the stage of the administrative proceedings and the interests involved in the eviction claim. No further guidelines can be given in this regard.

Decision-making modalities
The availability of alternative accommodation is an important consideration when assessing the admissibility of an eviction claim, in view of the interests of a child affected by a proposed eviction. If the circumstances of the case so warrant, the court that considers the eviction claim to be admissible may, in view of those interests, attach to the eviction order the modalities it deems appropriate. For example, the court may apply a long eviction period or suspend its decision for some time in order to facilitate the search for alternative accommodation for the parents and children. Under certain circumstances, it is also conceivable that the court may attach to an order for eviction the condition that adequate accommodation be provided for children affected by the eviction. This does not alter the fact that, in principle, it is not the responsibility of the landlord to provide alternative accommodation or care. In his decision, the court will always have to take into account the landlord's interest in the eviction and the urgency thereof.

Conclusion
With this preliminary ruling, the Supreme Court provides a framework for eviction cases involving children. The interests of the child are paramount but remain part of a balancing of interests in which the interests of the landlord and local residents also play a role. This ruling does not increase the predictability of eviction cases.

In practice, this means that judges must actively examine the consequences of an eviction within the limits of procedural law. Landlords cannot simply invoke a zero-tolerance policy, but will have to provide the court with information about the presence of minor children and the availability of alternative accommodation, and explain what an eviction means for the children and why those consequences are acceptable in the specific case. This requires, among other things, an investigation into the family situation, and it may be advisable to involve social services.

Would you like to know more or do you have questions about your position as a tenant or landlord? Please feel free to contact one of our lawyers without any obligation. We will be happy to assist you and keep you informed of further developments.