In the matter of the Child E

Habitual residence is a factual question focused on the child’s integration in a social and family environment. The court must assess the practical connection with each country, considering stability, the child’s existing connections, parental intention and the arrangements made for the child’s life after a move. No fixed period of residence or parental agreement is required. A child may acquire a new habitual residence relatively quickly.

Where a child was habitually resident in a Contracting State immediately before removal, the removal is wrongful if it breached custody rights and was not consented to. If proceedings begin within one year, return under Article 12 of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is ordinarily mandatory.

The mother sought the summary return to Spain of her five-year-old daughter under the Hague Convention 1980. The father had brought the child from Spain to England on 30 November 2022 and opposed return, principally asserting that the child remained habitually resident in England. He also alleged that the mother had consented to the removal.

The child had lived in England until June 2022, then remained in Spain with her mother, attended a bilingual school from September, and developed social and family connections there. The father had also participated in Spanish proceedings and agreed to the child’s return. The issues were the child’s habitual residence immediately before removal, consent under Article 13, and the consequent application of Article 12.

1. Habitual residence. The child had become habitually resident in Spain by 30 November 2022. The inquiry was child-focused and factual. The court applied the principles collected in Re B (a minor) (Habitual Residence) [2016] EWHC 2174 (Fam), including the relevance of integration, proximity, stability, parental intention and the connections retained with the former country of residence.
2. The child’s six-month residence in Spain was not merely a holiday. She was in her mother’s primary care, had been registered at a bilingual school, obtained Spanish identification, and developed activities and relationships there. The arrangements showed sufficient stability and integration to displace her previous habitual residence in England. The guidance in Re B (A child) [2016] UKSC 4 concerning the speed with which integration may be achieved supported that conclusion.
3. Consent. Applying the principles summarised in Re G (Abduction: Consent/discretion) [2021] EWCA Civ 139, the father bore the burden of proving clear and unequivocal consent. His message on the day of removal indicated that the mother had not known of the removal in advance and had been told it was only for a few days. The mother’s immediate report to the Spanish police further contradicted consent. The Article 13 defence therefore failed.
4. Return. The child was habitually resident in Spain, the mother was exercising custody rights, and the removal was wrongful under Articles 3 and 12 of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. As proceedings had commenced within one year, the court ordered the child’s return forthwith. Consistently with the father’s agreement in Spain, she was to be made available for collection by the mother in England no later than 22 March 2023.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate history is stated in the judgment.