J (Habitual Residence), Re

J (Habitual Residence), Re

The child remained habitually resident in England and Wales at the time proceedings were issued, as her removal was legally insecure, her roots in England were deep, and the brief absence did not change her habitual residence; therefore, the court had jurisdiction.

Parties
Applicant: Mr B; Respondents: Mr and Mrs E; Respondent: Ms J
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Family / Judgment
Outcome
Jurisdiction affirmed; child habitually resident in England and Wales at time of proceedings.
Legal Topics
Habitual Residence, Jurisdiction, Parental Responsibility, Child Removal, Children Act 1989
Family Law International Child Law Habitual Residence Jurisdiction Parental Responsibility Child Removal Children Act 1989

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr B

Applicant

Mr and Mrs E

Respondents

Ms J

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction over proceedings concerning a child based on habitual residence
  2. 2 Whether the child lost habitual residence in England and Wales following removal to the United States
  3. 3 Compliance with Children Act 1989 section 13 regarding removal from jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The child remained habitually resident in England and Wales at the time proceedings were issued, as her removal was legally insecure, her roots in England were deep, and the brief absence did not change her habitual residence; therefore, the court had jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction affirmed; child habitually resident in England and Wales at time of proceedings.

Orders

  • Court invites written submissions on further orders.