NCC v L & Anor.

A child’s habitual residence depends on the circumstances of the child’s life and the degree of integration into the relevant social and family environment. Temporary presence, a transient lifestyle, limited schooling and healthcare arrangements, and weak social connections may indicate that habitual residence has not been acquired. Where jurisdiction exists, a request under article 15 may nevertheless be appropriate if the foreign court is better placed to determine the case and transfer is in the child’s best interests. The court may identify both grounds as alternative reasons for proceeding in the foreign jurisdiction.

The local authority began care proceedings after an eight-year-old Latvian child was taken into care following police protection proceedings concerning alleged domestic violence and neglect. The child had lived in England since May 2013 but had attended school irregularly, had not been registered with a school or GP in his later local authority area, and had limited connections with England.

The mother sought the relinquishment of English jurisdiction in favour of Latvia. The issues were whether the child had become habitually resident in England and, if so, whether the Latvian court should be requested to assume jurisdiction under article 15.

1. Habitual residence. The court concluded that the child had not acquired habitual residence in England. The assessment required consideration of the mother’s intentions and the child’s integration into English society. Relevant circumstances included the mother’s transient life, failure to establish a home or employment, lack of entitlement to benefits, the child’s irregular school attendance, failure to secure formal schooling and healthcare registration, and his limited social connections in England.
2. The child’s wish to return to Latvia, where his maternal grandmother and sister lived, supported the conclusion that England was not his habitual residence. Accordingly, the English court did not have jurisdiction.
3. Alternative article 15 decision. If jurisdiction had existed, the court would have requested the Latvian court to deal with the case. The Latvian authorities already knew the family, had investigated the maternal grandmother, and had relevant information readily available. Latvia was the child’s country of origin, the mother and local authority supported transfer, and the proposed transfer was consistent with the need to avoid delay and with the child’s best interests.
4. The court therefore adopted a two-pronged approach: the fundamental conclusion was that the child was not habitually resident in England, while the article 15 analysis provided an alternative reason why Latvia was the appropriate forum.