A (A Child), Re

Habitual residence is essentially a factual question. The court must consider all the circumstances without imposing legal sub-rules or glosses. For a child, the central inquiry is whether there is sufficient integration in a social and family environment. Stability and regularity matter, but permanence is unnecessary, and integration may arise quickly. Parental intention is relevant but not decisive. In the case of an infant, particular attention must be paid to the social and family environment of the person caring for the child. Where the evidence shows an unplanned, unstable and transitory arrangement, without meaningful family or social integration, the child may lack habitual residence in the jurisdiction when proceedings are issued.

Care proceedings were issued by Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council concerning a two-and-a-half-year-old child who had been found in Doncaster and placed in foster care. The child and his mother were Czech citizens. The mother had spent substantial periods in Germany, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, while the child had been brought to England by the mother’s partner without a settled care arrangement or clear parental plan.

The hearing was convened to determine whether the child was habitually resident in England and therefore whether the English court had jurisdiction over the care proceedings. The court considered the available, incomplete information and the child’s integration in England as at 10 February 2016.

1. Jurisdiction. The court held that the English court had no jurisdiction over the care proceedings. On the information available, the child could not be shown to have acquired a sufficient degree of integration in a social and family environment at the Doncaster address by the date on which the court was seised.
2. Applicable principles. Habitual residence is essentially factual and must be determined from all the circumstances. The assessment concerns the child’s integration in a social and family environment, shaped by the child’s best interests and practical connection with the country. Relevant considerations include the duration, regularity, conditions and reasons for the stay, nationality, education or nursery arrangements, language, and family and social relationships.
3. Parental intention is relevant but not determinative. A child will usually share the habitual residence of the person caring for the child, although this is not an inflexible rule. Stability, rather than permanence, is required, and the requisite integration may occur quickly.
4. For an infant, the relevant social and family environment is necessarily that of the people on whom the child depends. Where an infant is cared for by a parent, the parent’s own integration, reasons for moving, languages and geographical and family origins may be relevant.
5. Application. The child had no planned placement, no identified carer with parental responsibility, and no established nursery or medical arrangements in England. The arrangements were disorganised, unplanned and unstable, with a transitory character. The mother had initially described the stay as temporary and appeared unaware of the circumstances in which the child was found.
6. The court considered that the child was probably habitually resident in the Czech Republic. The Local Authority was directed to arrange a transition to Czech social workers and provide the Czech authorities with relevant information, including translated copies of the judgment and order. The mother was urged to cooperate with the authorities and welfare investigations.