KM (A CHILD : JURISDICTION : HABITUAL RESIDENCE), Re [2022] EWFC 132 (03 February 2022)

KM was habitually resident in England at the relevant date because her centre of interests, intention to remain, and primary family relationship with DM were in this jurisdiction. The factual circumstances and degree of integration support jurisdiction for the English court.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2022] EWFC 132
Parties: Applicant: A Local Authority; 1st Respondent: A Mother; 2nd Respondent: A Father; 3rd Respondent: DM; 4th Respondent: A Child (KM) (Through her Children’s Guardian)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 03 February 2022
Procedural Posture: Care Proceedings / Jurisdiction Determination
Outcome: Jurisdiction affirmed; proceedings to continue in English court.
Legal Topics: Habitual Residence, Jurisdiction, Parental Responsibility, Modern Slavery, Child Welfare

Family Law International Child Law Habitual Residence Jurisdiction Parental Responsibility Modern Slavery Child Welfare

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2

Parties

A Local Authority

Applicant

A Mother

1st Respondent

A Father

2nd Respondent

3rd Respondent

A Child (KM) (Through her Children’s Guardian)

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings / Jurisdiction Determination

Legal Issues

1 Does the English court have jurisdiction over care proceedings for KM based on habitual residence?
2 What is KM's habitual residence at the relevant date?
3 Does the presence of parental responsibility and family life affect jurisdiction?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction affirmed; proceedings to continue in English court.

Orders

Invite submissions as to timetable for final welfare hearing.
Proceedings to move towards welfare determination for KM.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.