AR v RN

AR v RN

The Supreme Court held that the lower court erred by focusing exclusively on the absence of a joint parental intention to relocate permanently to Scotland. The correct approach is to assess all relevant circumstances, including the stability and integration of the children's lives in Scotland. The Extra Division properly applied this test and was entitled to conclude that the children were habitually resident in Scotland at the material time. Therefore, there was no wrongful retention under the Hague Convention.

Parties
Appellant: AR; Respondent: RN; Intervener: Reunite International Child Abduction Centre; Intervener: Children and Families Across Borders; Intervener: International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Abduction, Habitual Residence, Hague Convention, Custody
Family Law International Law Child Abduction Habitual Residence Hague Convention Custody

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AR

Appellant

RN

Respondent

Reunite International Child Abduction Centre

Intervener

Children and Families Across Borders

Intervener

International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the children were habitually resident in France or Scotland immediately before 20 November 2013 under the Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether the initiation of residence proceedings by the mother constituted wrongful retention under the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the lower court erred by focusing exclusively on the absence of a joint parental intention to relocate permanently to Scotland. The correct approach is to assess all relevant circumstances, including the stability and integration of the children's lives in Scotland. The Extra Division properly applied this test and was entitled to conclude that the children were habitually resident in Scotland at the material time. Therefore, there was no wrongful retention under the Hague Convention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed