DB v CB

Habitual residence is a factual, child-focused inquiry into integration within a social and family environment. The court considers stability, practical connections and the child’s actual life. Parental intention is relevant but not determinative. A child may acquire habitual residence quickly, and temporary absences do not necessarily change it. A breakdown in the parents’ relationship does not itself immediately alter habitual residence. Where the child was habitually resident in England immediately before the alleged removal, Article 3 is not engaged and Article 13 defences need not be considered.

The father applied under the 1980 Hague Convention for the return of his young son from England to Switzerland, alleging wrongful removal on 31 August 2017. The parents disputed where the child had been habitually resident before the move to London in September 2016, whether he later relocated to Switzerland, and whether he remained habitually resident in England and Wales at the relevant date.

The court found that the child had been habitually resident in Switzerland before September 2016, became habitually resident in England after moving there, and did not relocate his habitual residence back to Switzerland during summer 2017.

1. Application dismissed. The child was habitually resident in England and Wales on 31 August 2017. His return to England therefore did not constitute wrongful removal under Article 3 of the 1980 Hague Convention.
2. Habitual residence is a factual inquiry centred on the child. The relevant question is whether the child has achieved some degree of integration into a social and family environment. Stability, rather than permanence or a minimum period of residence, is material. Parental intention is relevant but not determinative.
3. The child had been integrated into the environment centred on the maternal grandparents’ home in Switzerland before September 2016. After moving to London, he attended nursery and organised social and educational activities there. Those arrangements established sufficient stability and integration for him to become habitually resident in England.
4. The family did not relocate to Switzerland at the end of June 2017. The continuing search for a London home, repeated returns to London, continued nursery arrangements and the absence of discussions recording a permanent move to Switzerland outweighed the period spent in Switzerland. The August stay with the maternal grandparents was a holiday and did not establish new roots.
5. The parents’ final relationship breakdown did not itself change the child’s habitual residence. Since Article 3 was not engaged, it was unnecessary to determine the mother’s consent and grave-risk defences under Article 13.