G (A Child) (Habitual Residence), Re

Habitual residence is determined as a question of fact by evaluating the child’s circumstances and comparative integration at the date proceedings begin. Earlier habitual residence, nationality, parental intentions and continuing family links are relevant but not decisive. A prolonged absence may disengage a child’s previous links even where the move was unilateral and the new residence is precarious. The phrase some degree of integration describes one factor in the assessment; it is not a free-standing test. Where jurisdiction is based on habitual residence, the court must also retain that jurisdiction at the final hearing.

The father applied under the inherent jurisdiction for the return of G, born in early 2023, from Pakistan or the United Arab Emirates to England and Wales. G had lived with her parents in England after birth but travelled regularly between England, Pakistan and the UAE. She had not returned to England after February 2024 and was living with her mother in the UAE when proceedings began on 8 January 2026.

The father contended that G remained habitually resident in England and Wales. The mother contended that G had become habitually resident elsewhere and that the court lacked jurisdiction. The central issue was whether G remained habitually resident in England and Wales on the commencement date and, if so, at the final hearing.

1. Disposition. G was not habitually resident in England and Wales on 8 January 2026. The court therefore lacked jurisdiction under the inherent jurisdiction and dismissed the father’s application.
2. Habitual residence is an overarching question of fact. The court must assess the child’s situation in the round, including the child’s integration, family circumstances, parental intentions, duration and quality of residence, and links with the former and current states. There is no burden of proof on the issue.
3. The relevant date for jurisdiction was the commencement of proceedings. Because jurisdiction based on habitual residence may be lost during proceedings, the court also had to be satisfied that it retained jurisdiction at the final hearing.
4. G’s earlier habitual residence in England and Wales was not decisive. Although her father and paternal family remained linked to England, G had been absent for 22 months, had no nursery, healthcare or social links there, and her mother no longer had permission to reside in the jurisdiction. Her residence in the UAE was precarious, but that had to be assessed together with her substantial residence and family links in Pakistan.
5. The unilateral nature of the mother’s retention did not prevent habitual residence from changing. The father’s conduct also contributed to the circumstances in which G remained abroad. The length of the absence was sufficient to disengage G’s previous links and establish new links elsewhere.
6. The guidance in Re B (Habitual Residence: Inherent Jurisdiction) [2016] UKSC 4 concerned likely timing of disintegration and reintegration, rather than standalone criteria. The concept of some degree of integration, discussed in A v A and another (Children: Habitual Residence) [2014] AC 1, was not a free-standing test.
7. The parties were invited to draw a suitable order.