Family Law Hub

Habitual Residence

Latest updates

  • The mother applied for an order requiring the father to return their son from Ghana to England. The father argued that the mother had consented to the move, and that the child would benefit educationally from staying there for two more years. Four of the mother's other children had been removed from her care. MacDonald J found that the father had misrepresented the trip as a summer holiday. There was no evidence that the child's current school provision was equipped to meet his educational needs. The father himself was no longer in Ghana. MacDonald J was satisfied that the court retained jurisdiction, and ordered the child's return, making him a ward of court. Judgment, 14/06/2019, free
  • The father applied for the summary return of his daughter to Israel. The mother claimed that the child had been habitually resident in England prior to the wrongful retention, and that returning her to Israel would place her at risk for the purposes of Art 13(b) of the 1980 Convention. MacDonald J found that the mother's oral and written evidence had to be treated with some caution. He ruled that, despite the father's consent to the move, the child remained habitually resident in Israel, due to the unsettled situation in London. Sufficient protective measures were in place, and the court exercised its discretion to order that the child be returned to Israel. Judgment, 31/05/2019, free
  • Contrary to court orders, the father had wrongfully taken his son – a young man of nineteen with profound learning disabilities – to live in the USA. The mother sought an order for his return to the UK. Russell J DBE held that there were grounds for finding that a return to the UK was not in the young man's best interests. The child's future as an adult lay in the USA and these proceedings were to come to an end in recognition of that fact. The appropriate forum for any future litigation was the court in Texas. Judgment, 15/04/2019, free
  • Wife's application for leave to amend her petition for divorce from the residual ground of sole domicile, to indent 2 of Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation 2201/2003 - namely, that the petitioner and respondent were last habitually resident in England and Wales and that the petitioner still resides in this jurisdiction - was refused. Judgment, 22/03/2019, free
  • Father's application for a stay of the UK proceedings relating to the summary return of the child from India to the UK was refused. Judgment, 14/03/2019, free

Latest know-how

  • In brief: A preliminary ruling from the ECJ determined that in order to establish habitual residence under Article 8 BIIR, a child must be physically present in the member state. The circumstances of the child being physically present elsewhere are irrelevant. This was a referral from the English High Court where the father ("F") had allegedly coerced the mother ("M") into remaining in Bangladesh with the child, potentially in breach of their ECHR rights. Case note, 17/12/2018, members only
  • The Romanian court sought a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice about interpreting Article 15 where two member states have jurisdiction, one under Article 8, the other under Article 12 Case note, 17/12/2018, members only
  • In a tweet: Test in Re A (children) [2013] UKSC 60 was used to assess whether the parties were habitually resident in England Case note, 06/08/2018, members only
  • President's Guidance announcing promulgation of the long awaited standard orders for children cases Practice note, 07/06/2018, free
  • In a tweet: Repudiatory retention is possible in 1980 Hague Convention proceedings Case note, 11/04/2018, members only

Latest training

  • Tim Scott QC of 29 Bedford Row tries to make sense of what might happen to international family cases after 29th March next year and reviews a few recent key international finance cases. Recorded September 2018. Webcast, 07/10/2018, members only
  • Training notes to accompany Timothy Scott QC's recorded webinar on International Family Law Training note, 09/10/2013, members only
  • Timothy Scott QC rounds up all the latest developments in international family law touching on case law and policy developments such as how the Maintenance Regulation is operating 2 years on, an update on BIIR cases and staying proceedings and Hemain injunctions. Webcast, 09/10/2013, members only
  • Six questions, worth an hour of CPD, on the cases of HB v PB [2013] EWHC 1956 (Fam); DL v EL [2013] EWCA Civ 865 and K v D [2013] EWHC 796 (Fam) CPD course, 03/09/2013, members only
  • CPD course, 01/05/2012, free

Copyright 

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.

Disclaimer

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