B v G

Under the Hague Convention, a child’s habitual residence is a question of fact centred on the child’s integration in the social and family environment. A permanent relocation may change habitual residence very quickly, including almost immediately on arrival, where the external circumstances demonstrate integration into the new home and family. A child may lose an existing habitual residence when leaving one country even if a new habitual residence has not yet been acquired.

Where a child objects to return under article 13, the court has a discretion rather than an obligation to refuse return. The court may give substantial weight to an informed and settled decision made by the parents with parental responsibility, and may address concerns about maintaining family relationships through undertakings.

The applicant father sought the return of his 12-year-old daughter to Spain under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 and the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The child had lived in England with her mother and maternal grandmother. Following the mother’s death, the parents’ agreed plan was that the child would relocate permanently to Spain to live with her father.

The child travelled to Spain in July 2023, but returned to England after a holiday and was retained there by her grandmother. The grandmother argued that the child remained habitually resident in England. Alternatively, she relied on the child’s objections to returning to Spain. The issues were whether the child had become habitually resident in Spain and, if so, whether a return order should nevertheless be made.

1. Return order. The court found that the child’s move to Spain on 8 July 2023 was intended to be permanent. Her habitual residence in England ended on departure, and she acquired habitual residence in Spain by 13 July 2023.
2. Habitual residence. The inquiry was child-centred and factual. It focused on integration in the social and family environment, rather than the passage of a fixed period or parental intention alone. The child moved to her father’s home, was integrated into his family, was registered as resident and enrolled at a Spanish school, and had existing links with Spain. The reasoning in A v A and Re LC supported acquisition of habitual residence very shortly after arrival. The approach suggesting that an appreciable period was always required was rejected as too rigid.
3. Wrongful retention and objection. Because the child was habitually resident in Spain when retained in England, article 12 required return unless an exception applied. The court accepted that the child objected to returning to Spain and had sufficient age and maturity for her views to be considered under article 13.
4. Exercise of discretion. The objection did not determine the outcome. The court gave considerable weight to the settled decision of both parents with parental responsibility that the child should live with her father. The objections were influenced partly by divided loyalties and concern about contact with the maternal family. Those concerns could be addressed by enforceable undertakings concerning extended holiday contact.
5. The court ordered the child’s return to Spain and invited agreement on arrangements for an orderly return and undertakings enforceable in Spain.