A (A Child) (Habitual Residence), Re

A (A Child) (Habitual Residence), Re

A was habitually resident in India on 17 October 2025, having achieved sufficient integration there, and therefore the English court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the application.

Parties
Applicant: Father; First Respondent: Mother; Second Respondent: Cafcass Legal (Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Wardship and Summary Return (child Abduction) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Habitual Residence, Wardship, Jurisdiction of English Courts, Summary Return of Child
Family Law Child Abduction Jurisdiction Habitual Residence Wardship Jurisdiction of English Courts Summary Return of Child

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Father

Applicant

Mother

First Respondent

Cafcass Legal (Guardian)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Wardship and Summary Return (child Abduction) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was A habitually resident in England or India on 17 October 2025?
  2. 2 Does the English court have jurisdiction to entertain the application?
  3. 3 Is England and Wales the convenient forum?

Ratio Decidendi

A was habitually resident in India on 17 October 2025, having achieved sufficient integration there, and therefore the English court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Declaration that A was habitually resident in India on 17 October 2025 and the court lacks jurisdiction.
  • Discharge of the order for A’s wardship.