F, Re (A Child) (Habitual Residence)

A child’s habitual residence is determined by a child-focused, global analysis of all relevant circumstances. The court must compare the child’s practical connections with each candidate country. The existence of some social and family integration in a new country is relevant but is neither the test nor a determinative threshold.

Where a child has an established habitual residence, the inquiry may properly ask whether that residence was lost and another acquired. The formulation must not tilt the analysis towards either country or impose a burden on one parent. Relevant matters include the purpose, intended duration and stability of the stay, schooling, relationships, parental intentions and continuing connections with the former country.

A seven-year-old child had lived throughout her life in Colombia before travelling with her father to England for an agreed visit of just over three months. Her school place and family life in Colombia were maintained. The father later decided unilaterally that she would remain in England.

The mother applied under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. The High Court found a wrongful retention on 30 May 2024 but dismissed the application because the child had become habitually resident in England. It did not determine the father’s defence under Article 13(b).

The mother appealed, contending that the judge had adopted a legally tilted approach, relied on later events and reached an unsustainable conclusion. The central issue was whether the child remained habitually resident in Colombia at the date of retention.

1. The appeal was allowed unanimously. Habitual residence is an issue of fact requiring a child-focused global analysis of all relevant circumstances. The list of potentially relevant factors is open-ended, and guidance derived from another case must be transposed with caution. The inquiry must examine the child’s practical connections with each candidate country.

2. The existence of “some degree of integration” in a social and family environment is not the test and does not determine habitual residence. It is one element of the global assessment. The summary in In re B (A Child) (Custody Rights: Habitual Residence) [2016] 4 WLR 156, if read literally as making some integration the operative test, is misleading.

3. It is permissible to ask whether a child lost an old habitual residence and acquired a new one. The danger is that an exclusive or predominant focus on either half of that question may prevent a balanced comparison. Habitual residence has no default position. The court should objectively determine where the child was resident rather than place on one parent the burden of disproving residence in the other country.

4. The judge’s analysis was legally flawed. She focused on whether the mother had shown that the child had not acquired habitual residence in England. She did not sufficiently balance the child’s profound connections with Colombia against her circumstances in England.

5. On the correct assessment, the child remained habitually resident in Colombia. Her entire previous life, primary home, parents, maternal family, school, friends and activities were there. Her stay in England was agreed and understood to be temporary. Its extension because of unavailable passports did not change its character. Temporary schooling and developing relationships in England did not outweigh her Colombian connections. The primary carer’s return to Colombia further weakened the stability of the child’s presence in England.

6. The Court of Appeal substituted a finding that the child was habitually resident in Colombia on 30 May 2024. The case was remitted for determination of the father’s Article 13(b) defence under the 1980 Convention, which carries a high threshold. The child-objections issue was not remitted because the judge had accepted that the child did not object to returning.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): By [2025] EWCA Civ 911, unanimously allowed the mother’s appeal, substituted a finding that the child was habitually resident in Colombia on 30 May 2024 and remitted the Article 13(b) defence for rehearing.
2. High Court, Family Division: On 24 March 2025, Morgan J found that the father had wrongfully retained the child on 30 May 2024 but dismissed the application under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention because the child was habitually resident in England and Wales. No neutral citation is stated.