Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles

HABITUAL RESIDENCE: Re A (Wardship: Habitual Residence) [2006] EWHC 3338 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:26 PM
Slug : re-a-wardship-habitual-residence-2006-ewhc-3338-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 21, 2006, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86477

(Family Division; Sir Mark Potter P; 21 December 2006)

The father and mother had married in Kurdistan, but had made their home in the UK; the child had been born in the UK. When the child was 19 months old, the family travelled to Kurdistan. Shortly afterwards the father returned to the UK, leaving the wife and the child with the paternal grandmother. The mother stated that the move had been represented as a business trip and holiday; the father's case was that he and the family were relocating with the intention of making their home in Kurdistan. Within a matter of months the father had divorced the mother, who signed an agreement approved by the Kurdistan court granting custody of the child to the father. The mother saw the child every week at the home of the paternal grandmother for about one week, after which the father refused to allow her any further contact with the child. The mother made her way to England, and applied for wardship in respect of the child, now 4 years old. A hearing was held to decide whether the court had jurisdiction; the question in issue was whether the child was habitually resident in England or in Kurdistan.

The court had no jurisdiction because the child was not habitually resident in England and Wales. Although the court accepted the mother's account as substantially true, after the divorce the mother had accepted the father's intention that the child should reside in Kurdistan, until she left Kurdistan herself. In any event, the question of habitual residence of a child was not always determinable by reference to the combined intention of the parties; it ultimately depended upon whether it could properly and realistically be said that the child was habitually resident in England and Wales.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from