GM v DB

Habitual residence is a question of fact requiring the child’s integration into a social and family environment with sufficient stability. Intention is relevant context but does not itself establish or prevent habitual residence. For an infant or very young child, the relevant environment is principally the family environment created by the person or persons providing care. A child may have no habitual residence where frequent moves between two family homes produce a disrupted life, despite integration into both environments, and neither home has acquired sufficient long-term stability.

The father applied under the Hague Convention for the summary return of his four-year-old son to Italy. The child had dual Italian and Romanian nationality and had spent substantial, fluctuating periods in both countries before travelling from Italy to Romania in January 2014 and later moving with his mother to England.

The father alleged that the child was habitually resident in Italy and had been wrongfully removed. The mother disputed Italian habitual residence and relied, alternatively, on settlement under Article 12 and grave risk under Article 13(b). The central issue was whether the child was habitually resident in Italy when he left on 15 January 2014.

1. The father’s application was dismissed. The child was not habitually resident in Italy when he left for Romania. The court therefore did not need to determine the Article 12 or Article 13(a) and (b) issues.
2. Habitual residence is a factual question. The relevant inquiry concerns the degree of the child’s integration into a social and family environment and the stability acquired in the relevant place. Intention alone cannot establish habitual residence.
3. For a very young child, the family environment is particularly important. The assessment must be made from the child’s perspective, having regard to the person who provides care and stability. The child’s primary carer was therefore a significant consideration, although the child’s relationship with his father and paternal family also formed part of the overall environment.
4. The child had experienced repeated moves between Romania and Italy. He was familiar with both countries, families, languages and lifestyles, and was integrated into both family environments. However, the frequent changes of home, people, language and surroundings meant that he had acquired little long-term stability in either country.
5. The court concluded that this was an unusual case in which the child fell between two family home bases. He had two homes and was integrated into both, but neither amounted to a habitual residence at the relevant date. The Hague Convention application accordingly failed at the threshold.