Summary
The proceedings were in respect of a child, M, born on 8th February 2001.
Both parents were US nationals. They lived together without a marriage and separated in December 2003.
In 2005, the mother commenced a relationship with a British national, and she came with M to live in the UK in 2007.
In August 2012, the father made an application for a summary return of the child to the US. The proceedings were served to the mother, and she became aware of them after receiving an email.
On 22nd May 2013, the mother issued proceedings in the English High Court, seeking a residence order. An important issue was whether the English court had jurisdiction. Mr Justice Cobb answered this question in affirmative. In this context, he held:
“41 As I have indicated above (§10), M has lived in England now for over six years, nearly one half of her life. On the evidence presented to this court she appears thoroughly “integrated ” here. Her mother has married a British national and they have made their family home here for many years;
M's mother and step-father have full-time employment here. M has been at school here for the last six years, recently moving to a senior school. She excels at school, and has a huge range of extra-curricular pastimes. Her social life and friends are here; she is said to be popular among her peers. Her half-sister was born here and has lived all her life here with M in her family.
42 On the basis of the test outlined above (see §40, notably (iii)) I have no hesitation in concluding that M is habitually resident in England & Wales. She could not in my judgment be regarded as habitually resident in any other country.
43 It follows that the Court of England and Wales undoubtedly, in my judgment, has jurisdiction to entertain the mother's application for substantive welfare-based orders in respect of M. I do not accept the determination by the American Court (26 August 2013) that the English Court lacks jurisdiction.” [41-43]