England and Wales Case Law

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…

Source excerpt

• Habitual residence
• Jurisdiction
• Parental responsibility
• Children act 1989
• Hague convention 1996

Read case analysis

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Mother & Ors

The court cannot establish habitual residence for C and M based on the evidence, so jurisdiction is conferred by Article 6(2) and Article 5(1) of the 1996 Hague Convention; E is outside jurisdiction as he is not present or habitually resident in England.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Habitual residence
• Hague convention 1996
• Care proceedings
• Serious medical treatment

Read case analysis

CB (Habitual Residence: Child Born and Present Abroad), Re

The High Court held that a child born and living in Spain was habitually resident there, refused jurisdiction transfer, and dismissed the mother’s application.

• Habitual residence
• Jurisdiction of the court
• Parens patriae
• Child protection
• Hague convention 1996
• Inherent jurisdiction

Read case analysis

CB (Habitual Residence: Child Born and Present Abroad), Re

CB (Habitual Residence: Child Born and Present Abroad), Re [2025] EWHC 1712 (Fam) (07 July 2025)

The High Court held that a child born and living in Spain was habitually resident there, declined Article 9 transfer, and dismissed the wardship application.

• Habitual residence
• Jurisdiction of the court
• Parens patriae
• Child protection
• International child abduction
• Hague convention 1996

Read case analysis

D (A Minor) (Care Proceedings: Placement in France: Hague 1996, Article 33), Re (Rev1)

D (A Minor) (Care Proceedings: Placement in France: Hague 1996, Article 33), Re (Rev1) [2025] EWFC 202 (04 July 2025)

The court approved care arrangements allowing a child to live with his paternal aunt in France, criticized major delays, and made orders securing the placement.

• Care proceedings
• International placement of children
• Delay in proceedings
• Parental responsibility
• Hague convention 1996
• Child welfare

Read case analysis

S (A Child: Article 9 transfer to Norway)

S (A Child: Article 9 transfer to Norway) [2024] EWHC 2814 (Fam) (25 October 2024)

The High Court transferred jurisdiction over a child protection case to Norway under Article 9 of the 1996 Hague Convention, despite concerns about delay.

• Jurisdiction transfer
• Best interests of the child
• Hague convention 1996
• Care proceedings
• International cooperation
• Family-law

Read case analysis

B v C (No 2) (1996 Hague Convention Art 22)

It would be manifestly contrary to public policy, taking into account A's best interests as a primary consideration, to apply Spanish law as designated by Article 16(3) of the 1996 Hague Convention to allow D's parental responsibility for A to subsist in England, where that status was acquired by fraud, D is a stranger to A, and the situation is corrosive of A's identity and welfare. Therefore, Article 22 is engaged and D does not have parental responsibility for A in England and Wales.

Source excerpt

• Parental responsibility
• Jurisdiction
• Applicable law
• Public policy exception
• Children's rights
• Recognition of foreign parental responsibility

Read case analysis

U v E

The English court no longer has jurisdiction as the child's habitual residence has moved to Ireland. The applicant can pursue remedies in Ireland, and the proceedings in England are concluded.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Habitual residence
• Parental responsibility
• Child contact
• Hague convention 1996

Read case analysis

R v M (Hague Convention; Withdrawal of Application and Art. 16 (Parental Responsibility))

Permission to withdraw Hague Convention proceedings was granted as all parties agreed and overriding objective was satisfied. Recognition of New Zealand parental responsibility was refused because Article 16(3) only applies to parental responsibility acquired by operation of law, not by judicial intervention, and insufficient evidence was provided to establish parental responsibility under New Zealand law.

Source excerpt

• Hague convention 1980
• Hague convention 1996
• Parental responsibility
• Child abduction
• Jurisdiction
• Recognition of foreign orders

Read case analysis

NJ v JB

The Family Court of England and Wales has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the mother's application as the child is habitually resident in England and Wales, the three-month period for the French court's continuing jurisdiction has expired, and the Bordeaux court no longer has jurisdiction. The Family Court may withhold recognition of irreconcilable parts of the Bordeaux judgment but cannot review its substance.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments
• Child arrangements
• Brussels ii revised regulation
• Hague convention 1996

Read case analysis