B (A Minor : Habitual Residence)

A child's habitual residence is determined by a factual enquiry into the child's integration in a social and family environment. The enquiry centres on the child's actual life, including daily routines, relationships and practical connections. Stability is assessed qualitatively; permanence, full integration and a prescribed period of residence are unnecessary. Parental intentions are relevant but do not determine the result. Extensive international travel can coexist with sufficient integration in a settled home. Where the child was not habitually resident in the state to which summary return is sought at the relevant time, the court need not determine defences of consent, acquiescence or grave risk.

The mother, an American citizen, sought the summary return of her three-year-old daughter to New York, where the child had been born and initially lived. The father, a French citizen living in London, opposed the application. Following the child's first journey to Europe, she had travelled extensively between England, France, Italy, Senegal and the United States, spending periods with each parent and other carers.

The father maintained a settled London home with his partner, who had become an important figure in the child's life. He disputed that the child remained habitually resident in New York at the relevant time. He also relied on the mother's consent or acquiescence and alleged that return would expose the child to grave risk or an intolerable situation. The central issue was whether the child's social and family integration established habitual residence despite her extensive travels.

1. The mother's application for summary return failed. The child was habitually resident in the United Kingdom. Her London home provided social and family integration which was qualitatively more stable than her connections elsewhere.

2. Habitual residence required a factual enquiry into the child's integration in a social and family environment. Applying A v A [2013] UKSC 60 and the subsequent Supreme Court authorities, the court centred its assessment on the child's life. Legal sub-rules and glosses should be avoided. Proximity meant the child's practical connection with the country concerned.

3. Stability, rather than permanence, mattered. Following the principles in Re KL [2013] UKSC 75 and Re R [2015] UKSC 35, integration was assessed qualitatively rather than by counting days. Some integration sufficed, and neither full integration nor residence for a prescribed period was required. Parental intentions were relevant but did not determine habitual residence; the parents' lack of a defined long-term plan therefore did not resolve the enquiry.

4. A child would usually, but not necessarily, share the habitual residence of the caring parent or parents. The enquiry nevertheless concerned the child's own integration. The observations in Re R (a child) [2015] EWCA Civ 674 also provided guidance that happiness, good care and freedom from abuse were not prerequisites for habitual residence. Positive and negative features of the environment could both be relevant.

5. The principles in Re B [2016] UKSC 4 required consideration of the child's connections with the former state alongside integration in the new environment. Loss of an existing habitual residence would usually coincide with acquisition of another. Having no habitual residence remained possible but highly unusual. Where reasonable interpretations supported either habitual residence somewhere or its complete absence, the former interpretation should be adopted.

6. Despite her travels, the child had secure roots in London. Her own bedroom, continuing relationships with the father and his partner, a consistent nanny, swimming, nursery attendance and friendships demonstrated integration. There was little evidence of competing integration elsewhere. The conclusion rested on the environment created for the child, rather than merely on a comparison of parental care.

7. Statements in habitual-residence proceedings should address the child's daily life and relationships. Deficient statements should be identified and permission to amend sought promptly. Since the child was not habitually resident in the United States at the relevant time, consent, acquiescence and the Article 13 b defence required no determination.

not stated in the judgment.