B (A Minor : Habitual Residence)

A child’s habitual residence is determined by a child-centred factual inquiry into the degree of integration in a social and family environment. The inquiry focuses on the child’s day-to-day life, routine, important relationships and practical connection with the country concerned.

Parental intentions are relevant but not determinative. Stability, rather than permanence or any fixed period of residence, is material. A child may acquire a new habitual residence quickly. When assessing a transition, the court should weigh the child’s continuing connection with the former state against the roots established in the new state. It will be unusual for a child to have no habitual residence where the facts support a coherent finding of one.

The mother applied for the summary return of her three-year-old daughter to New York State. The father opposed the application. He contended that the child was habitually resident in England and Wales and, alternatively, had ceased to be habitually resident in New York by the relevant date.

The child had experienced extensive travel between the United States, France, England, Italy and Senegal. The father also relied, in the alternative, on consent, acquiescence and grave-risk defences. The central issue was whether, on the relevant date, the child had acquired habitual residence in the United Kingdom rather than retaining habitual residence in New York.

1. Application dismissed. The child was habitually resident in the United Kingdom. The mother’s application for summary return to New York therefore could not succeed. It was unnecessary to determine the father’s consent, acquiescence or grave-risk defences.

2. The governing inquiry was factual and centred on the child. Habitual residence reflects a sufficient degree of integration in the child’s social and family environment. The court must examine the child’s own life, including daily experiences, routine, relationships, interests and the adults who matter to the child. Parental intention was relevant but could not displace that child-focused assessment.

3. Following the approach in A v A and another [2013] UKSC 60, In re R (Children) [2015] UKSC 35 and Re B (A child) [2016] UKSC 4, the court treated stability as qualitative rather than dependent on permanence or duration. It also weighed the child’s former connections against the roots established in the new environment. A new habitual residence can arise quickly, and a child will rarely be without one.

4. Despite the child’s peripatetic history, her life in London had become qualitatively stable and secure. She lived with her father and his partner in an established home, had her own room, regular care, meaningful family relationships, nursery attendance and social activities. There was little evidence of competing integration elsewhere. Her secure roots and social and family environment were in London.

5. The court added practical guidance for international children cases. Statements should primarily address the practical realities of the child’s life, rather than adult conflict. Properly prepared evidence should ordinarily enable habitual residence to be identified without extensive courtroom inquiry.

not stated in the judgment.