I (Habitual Residence), Re [2012] EWHC 3363 (Fam) (03 December 2012)

M was habitually resident in England and Wales at the time the proceedings were issued, as his settled life, social ties, and primary care were in England, and his habitual residence did not automatically follow his parents' intentions or actions in removing him.

Citation: [2012] EWHC 3363 (Fam)
Parties: Applicants: Mr and Mrs A; Respondents: Mr and Mrs I
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 03 December 2012
Procedural Posture: Children Act 1989 Application and Inherent Jurisdiction Application / Jurisdiction Determination
Outcome: Jurisdiction affirmed; court has jurisdiction over M.
Legal Topics: Habitual Residence, Jurisdiction, Parental Responsibility, Child Removal

Family Law International Child Law Habitual Residence Jurisdiction Parental Responsibility Child Removal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2

Parties

Mr and Mrs A

Applicants

Mr and Mrs I

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Children Act 1989 Application and Inherent Jurisdiction Application / Jurisdiction Determination

Legal Issues

1 Whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction over proceedings concerning M based on his habitual residence
2 Whether M's habitual residence was changed by his removal to Nigeria by his parents

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction affirmed; court has jurisdiction over M.

Orders

Parties invited to submit written submissions on further orders.
Previous orders for residence and return of M remain valid pending further consideration.