Our articles are written by experts in their field and include barristers, solicitors, judges, mediators, academics and professionals from a range of related disciplines. Family Law provides a platform for debate for all the important topics, from divorce
and care proceedings to transparency and access to justice. If you would like to contribute please email
emma.reitano@lexisnexis.co.uk.
A very legal playground: Re B (A Child) (Habitual Residence: Inherent Jurisdiction) and the habitual residence seesaw
© Copyright LexisNexis 2024. All rights reserved.
On 3 February 2016 the Supreme Court gave judgment in
Re B (A Child) (Habitual Residence: Inherent Jurisdiction) [2016] UKSC 4. The case addressed a novel point in the ongoing re-interpretation of the concept of habitual residence: when does a child lose it and is our domestic analysis of that consonant with the modern international concept?
B’s story
B a girl was born in April 2008. She is a British national. The respondent was B’s biological mother; the appellant was the respondent’s long-term partner and
'other than biologically B is the product of their relationship' (para [2]). On 3 February 2014 the respondent took B to live in Pakistan where they remained. Shortly after the appellant applied for (what was then) a shared residence order not knowing that B had been taken to Pakistan. On learning this in June 2014 the appellant also applied for orders that B be made a ward of court and be returned to England. Hogg J dismissed both of her applications ([2014] EWHC 3017 (Fam); the Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal ([2015] EWCA Civ 886).
It was...
Read the full article here.
