MP (A Child; Habitual Residence), Re

MP (A Child; Habitual Residence), Re

As at the date of issue of the father's Children Act proceedings (29 July 2025), MP was habitually resident in Country B. The court found that MP's presence in England was always contingent on not exceeding 120 days per year due to tax residency, that his integration and lived experience in Country B (especially with his mother) outweighed the factors supporting habitual residence in England, and that recent experiences and connections in Country B were more immediate and substantial. Accordingly, the courts of Country B have primary jurisdiction over matters of parental responsibility for MP under Article 5 of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention.

Parties
Applicant: HP; Respondent: FP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 August 2026
Procedural Posture
Children Act Proceedings (child Arrangements, Habitual Residence) / Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Habitual Residence and Jurisdiction
Outcome
MP is habitually resident in Country B; English courts do not have jurisdiction over matters of his welfare.
Legal Topics
Habitual Residence, Jurisdiction, Parental Responsibility, Children Act 1989, Hague Convention 1996
Family Law Private International Law Habitual Residence Jurisdiction Parental Responsibility Children Act 1989 Hague Convention 1996

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 1 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HP

Applicant

FP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Children Act Proceedings (child Arrangements, Habitual Residence) / Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Habitual Residence and Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether MP is habitually resident in England and Wales or Country B
  2. 2 Which court has jurisdiction over matters of MP's welfare

Ratio Decidendi

As at the date of issue of the father's Children Act proceedings (29 July 2025), MP was habitually resident in Country B. The court found that MP's presence in England was always contingent on not exceeding 120 days per year due to tax residency, that his integration and lived experience in Country B (especially with his mother) outweighed the factors supporting habitual residence in England, and that recent experiences and connections in Country B were more immediate and substantial. Accordingly, the courts of Country B have primary jurisdiction over matters of parental responsibility for MP under Article 5 of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention.

Court Disposition

MP is habitually resident in Country B; English courts do not have jurisdiction over matters of his welfare.

Orders

  • The courts of Country B have primary jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility for MP pursuant to Article 5 of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention.
  • No substantive orders made by the English court regarding MP's welfare.