MB v GK

Habitual residence is a question of fact, assessed by the child’s integration in a social and family environment. For an infant, that environment is ordinarily shared with the persons on whom the child depends. Parental purpose and intention remain relevant, but are only factors in the assessment. A stay abroad for a temporary and fixed purpose, with an intended return to the original country, may be insufficient to establish a new habitual residence. The court must conduct an essentially factual and individual inquiry without imposing legal concepts that distort the reality of the child’s circumstances.

The application concerned M, a child born in England in July 2012. He travelled to Singapore in July 2013 to stay with his paternal grandparents while his mother studied. The mother said the arrangement was temporary and that M was to return to England; the father said that M was to remain in Singapore indefinitely.

The mother returned to England in January 2014 and alleged that M was being unlawfully retained in Singapore. The issue was whether M had acquired habitual residence there and whether his retention occurred without her consent.

1. Habitual residence. The court applied the European approach adopted by the Supreme Court in A v A (Children: Habitual Residence), [2013] UKSC 60. Habitual residence is a factual question, concerned with the child’s integration in a social and family environment. For an infant, the relevant environment is shared with the persons on whom the child depends.
2. Parental intention. Following the clarification in Re LC, [2014] UKSC 1, the purpose and intention of parents with parental responsibility remain material. They do not, however, determine the issue independently of the child’s actual circumstances.
3. Application. M had been habitually resident in England before travelling to Singapore. The arrangement agreed at the time was temporary and served the fixed purpose of enabling his mother to complete her studies. M was living with his paternal grandparents rather than either parent, and the grandparents’ caring role was itself temporary. His integration into Singapore was therefore temporary in fact and by intention. M had not acquired habitual residence in Singapore.
4. The court rejected the father’s evidence that there was an agreement for M to remain in Singapore indefinitely. M had been retained there without the mother’s consent after January 2014.
5. An order was made requiring the father to arrange M’s immediate return to England, with a penal notice attached. M was to be placed in his mother’s care.

The judgment records that the matter was listed pursuant to an order of Mr Justice Bodey dated 30 January 2014 to determine jurisdiction. No appellate decision is stated.