A and B (Children: Return order: Article 13(a) defence: 1980 Hague Convention), Re

Under the 1980 Hague Convention, habitual residence is determined by a child-focused factual inquiry into the child’s integration in a social and family environment. Parental intention is relevant but not determinative. A child may acquire habitual residence quickly, and the stability of residence matters more than permanence or elapsed time.

Consent under article 13(a) must be clear and unequivocal, but may be inferred from words or conduct. It may be withdrawn before retention becomes wrongful. Where consent to a temporary relocation is withdrawn, continued retention may become wrongful and justify summary return.

The mother applied under article 12 of the 1980 Hague Convention for the summary return of two children from the UK to Hungary. The father resisted, asserting that the children were habitually resident in the UK and that the mother had consented to their remaining there.

The parents had lived between Hungary and the UK. The children had travelled to the UK in January 2024. The mother said the arrangement was temporary, to enable her to complete her medical studies, with a return to Hungary in May. She withdrew her consent on 31 March 2024. The central issues were the children’s habitual residence and the effect of that withdrawal.

1. Habitual residence. The court applied the child-focused, factual approach reflected in Re B and the later authorities. The question was whether the children had achieved the requisite degree of integration in a social and family environment. Their historical connections remained relevant, but the focus was their situation at the material date. Residence need not be permanent or prolonged.
2. The children were habitually resident in Hungary when they came to the UK. They were fully integrated into Hungarian society, including through their schooling and established daily lives. There was comparatively little evidence of integration in the UK.
3. Consent and wrongful retention. The evidence established an agreement for a temporary relocation to the UK, followed by return to Hungary. The mother’s consent was withdrawn on 31 March 2024. The children were therefore wrongfully retained in the UK from that date. The court relied on the principles summarised in Re G, including that consent may be manifested by words or conduct and may be withdrawn before the relevant removal or retention.
4. The court noted the law concerning consent affected by fraud or deception, but found it unnecessary to determine whether the mother’s consent was informed or invalidated in that way.
5. Disposition. The children’s interests required their return to Hungary, their habitual residence. The court ordered that they be returned forthwith.