Family Law Hub

I (A Child) & J (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 259

Appeal concerning right to remove and parental responsibility

  • In brief: This was a permission to appeal hearing in two very similar Jackson J cases involving the issue of whether those who hold parental responsibility can remove a child from the jurisdiction. We have previously covered the Jackson J decision in our recent updates. Lord Justice Ward granted permission to appeal in both cases, noting that there were two competing strands of jurisprudence on the issue: on the one hand, Mercredi v Chaffe [2011] where it was decided that habitual residence corresponds to the place where there is a degree of social and family integration by the child and, on the other hand, Re M (Minors) (Residence Order: Jurisdiction) [1993] where it was considered that habitual residence can be determined by those with parental responsibility who have the right to remove a child from the jurisdiction and care of others without parental responsibility.

Case note, published: 15/04/2013


See also

Published: 15/04/2013


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item