Lancashire County Council v T & Ors (Habitual Residence: Care Proceedings)

Habitual residence is determined as a question of fact by assessing the child’s integration in a social and family environment. Parental intentions are relevant only as part of the overall circumstances, including the reasons for the move and whether it has sufficient stability. A long-established habitual residence is not lost merely because a parent takes children abroad abruptly, secretly and without genuine relocation plans. A short stay, with no meaningful integration and continuing substantial connections in the former country, does not displace the court’s jurisdiction under Brussels IIa.

The local authority commenced care proceedings concerning five children on 15 July 2014. The children had lived all their lives in Lancashire until their father took them to the Republic of Ireland during the night of 9–10 July, shortly before the anticipated proceedings. The father asserted that the children had relocated and become habitually resident in Ireland. The mother and guardian supported the local authority’s case that the children remained habitually resident in England and Wales. The issues were whether the children had ceased to be habitually resident in England and Wales by 15 July and whether the proceedings should instead be transferred to Ireland under Article 15.

1. Jurisdiction and habitual residence. The court determined that all five children were habitually resident in England and Wales when the care proceedings commenced on 15 July 2014. Habitual residence was a question of fact under Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003.
2. The relevant inquiry was the place reflecting some degree of integration by each child in a social and family environment. Parental intention formed part of the assessment, particularly the reasons for leaving one country and the intended stability of the move, but it was not decisive.
3. The father’s conduct showed an abrupt flight intended to evade the impending care proceedings, rather than a genuine relocation. The children had not attained any degree of integration in Ireland by the relevant date. Their home, possessions, friends and wider family connections, including their mother, remained in England.
4. The children’s firmly established habitual residence in England could not be lost on such a slight factual basis. The steps taken in Ireland, including accommodation, registrations and proposed schooling, were insufficient to change that conclusion.
5. The proposed transfer under Article 15 was rejected. The father had not established the requisite grounds, and the Irish courts could not properly be regarded as better placed to hear the care proceedings. The court declared that the children were habitually resident in England and Wales on 15 July 2014.