T v P

For jurisdiction under the Hague Convention 1996, wrongful retention is assessed when the travelling parent repudiates the agreed temporary nature of the child’s stay. Later discussions about return, or agreement to give the other parent time to consider matters, do not amount to acquiescence unless the words and conduct clearly and unequivocally show acceptance of the retention. Habitual residence is determined at the date of wrongful retention. The court must assess the child’s integration in the relevant social and family environment, while weighing the strength of the previous habitual residence, the stability of the move, parental intentions and all other relevant circumstances.

The father sought declarations under the Hague Convention 1996 concerning his two-year-old son, Y, who had lived in England from birth. The parents travelled with Y to Russia for an agreed six-day visit. The mother refused to return with him on the booked flight on 8 February 2026 and later commenced proceedings in Russia. The father contended that Y was habitually resident in England immediately before the retention and that the mother had wrongfully retained him. The mother contended that the father had consented to, or acquiesced in, a temporary period in Russia and that Y had become habitually resident there by the time she decided to remain permanently. The central issues were the date of retention, acquiescence, Y’s habitual residence at that date and the resulting jurisdiction.

1. Wrongful retention. The trip to Russia was agreed to last six days and return tickets had been purchased. The mother’s refusal to place Y on the booked flight on 8 February 2026 was an objectively identifiable act repudiating the father’s rights of custody and the temporary nature of the visit. That was the date on which the retention became wrongful.
2. Acquiescence. Applying In re H and others (Minors) (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1998] 1 AC 72, acquiescence depended on the father’s actual state of mind and was a question of fact. The burden lay on the mother. The contemporaneous correspondence showed attempts to secure a voluntary return, not acceptance of permanent retention. An agreement to give the mother space and to stop pressing her was not acquiescence.
3. Habitual residence. The court applied the child-focused principles collected in E v. D [2022] EWHC 1216. Habitual residence required some degree of integration in a social and family environment. The court assessed stability rather than mere duration, the child’s connections with the former state, the parents’ integration where the child was dependent on them, proximity and parental intention. The inquiry remained child-focused and was not determined by either parent’s intention alone.
4. At the relevant date Y had lived his entire life in England, had British citizenship, was cared for there by both parents, had established family and medical connections there, and was to return under pre-booked tickets. Matters arising after 8 February 2026, including medical care, activities and a proposed nursery place in Russia, were immaterial because the date of wrongful retention had already been fixed. Y remained habitually resident in England.
5. The court declared that Y remained habitually resident in England and had been wrongfully retained in Russia on 8 February 2026. The Russian custody decision did not address jurisdiction and did not displace the English court’s obligation to determine habitual residence and jurisdiction for itself. The issue of Y’s return was adjourned for updated evidence and further submissions.

High Court (Family Division): First-instance application. The judgment records an earlier prohibited steps order in the Family Court and subsequent directions, but no appellate decision or citation is stated.