The child had been taken to Pakistan by one of the now separated parents. Not knowing that P had been so taken, the other mother applied for an order to help her find her, and for contact. Having learnt that the respondent had taken her to Pakistan, the appellant also applied for orders that B should be made a ward of court and be returned to England.
Held: Hogg J dismissed both of the appellant’s applications. It was common ground that the respondent and B had been habitually resident in England. When departing for Pakistan on that date, the respondent had genuinely intended to make a new life for herself and for B there and her motivation had not been to evade the appellant’s increasing demands to be allowed to play a fuller role in B’s life. So Hogg J held that the respondent had lost her own habitual residence in England. She accepted that the appellant had been a significant person in B’s life, particularly prior to the breakdown of the relationship between the two women; that the appellant still had much to offer B; and that B had said that she would miss the appellant and had wished to remain in touch with her. But, asked Hogg J, was B’s wish to remain in touch with the appellant enough to sustain a continuation of her habitual residence in England? Her answer was no.
 EWHC 3017 (Fam)
England and Wales
At First Instance – Re B (A Child) SC 3-Feb-2016
Habitual Residence of Child not lost
(Orse In re B (A Child) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening)) The Court considered the notion of habitual residence. The British girl with same sex parents had been taken to Pakistan, and her mother here sought her return. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.606037