RV v VT

Habitual residence is a child-focused question of fact. The court must assess the child’s integration into the social and family environment, including day-to-day life, relationships, education and practical connections. Parental intention is relevant but not determinative. Stability, rather than permanence or a fixed minimum period, is required. A child may acquire a new habitual residence quickly. Where integration has shifted sufficiently to the new state, unilateral removal may be wrongful under article 3 of the Hague Convention.

The father applied under the Hague Convention for the summary return of his four-year-old son, A, to Latvia. The mother had brought A to England on 4 July 2018 after he had lived in Latvia from February 2018. She disputed that A was habitually resident in Latvia and relied alternatively on consent, acquiescence, grave harm and an intolerable situation.

The central issue was whether A was habitually resident in Latvia immediately before his removal.

1. The court applied the child-focused, factual approach summarised in B (A Minor: Habitual Residence) [2016] EWHC 2174 (Fam). Habitual residence depended on integration into the social and family environment. The court considered A’s day-to-day life, family relationships, nursery attendance, language and practical connections. Parental intention was relevant but not determinative. Stability, rather than permanence or a prescribed period, was required.
2. A had been habitually resident in England until February 2018, but by 4 July 2018 he had become integrated into life in Latvia. He lived with his father and paternal family, had regular contact with maternal relatives, attended nursery and had been registered with a doctor. Applying the seesaw analogy from Re B (a child) [2016] UKSC 4, his integration had shifted decisively towards Latvia.
3. Removal was wrongful under article 3. The father’s custody rights were being exercised, and the mother had not obtained his consent. Her failure to disclose the removal plan and her expectation that he would object contradicted consent and acquiescence.
4. The article 13(b) defence was not established. Separation from the mother would be distressing, but the evidence did not show grave psychological risk or an intolerable situation. Latvia was familiar to A, and his having started school in England was insufficient.
5. The settlement discretion was unavailable because the application had been made immediately after removal. A was ordered to return to Latvia within 14 days.