The claimant mother took her 2 children from their grandparent’s home in Scotland where they were habitually resident on 4 July 1992 for a 2 week holiday with her in England. On 13 July she told the grandparents that she was not returning the children. She started proceedings in England on 23 July.
Held: The English courts would only have jurisdiction if the children were not habitually resident in any other part of the United Kingdom on 23 July. They were not so habitually resident as the mother’s notice to the grandparents on 13 July had brought their Scottish habitual residence to an end. The question was whether they had between 13 July and 23 July acquired habitual residence in England.
Balcombe LJ said: ‘I do not find it necessary to express a final opinion on this question. As stated in the passage from Lord Brandon’s speech in Re J which is the third proposition above it is easy to lose an habitual residence: it is more difficult to acquire one. It is sufficient to say that I entertain grave doubts that the children had by 23 July 1992, regained an habitual residence in England.’
Hoffman LJ agreed in the result, but would have had less difficulty than Balcombe LJ in holding that on 13 July the children were habitually resident in England. He set out his reasons.
Judges:
Balcombe LJ, Steyn LJ, Hoffman LJ
Citations:
(1993)1 FLR 495
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – W v F FD 4-Apr-2007
Application by father for summary return of son to the USA. The mother said that the father had consented to his removal and acquiesced in his stay here.
Held: The mother had a settled intention to remain in the US when she first arrived, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.268697
