EUPillar In re B (A Child) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre and others intervening) [2016] UKSC 4

Summary

The proceedings were in respect of a child, P. The father was unknown donor. The mother was in relationship with another woman. The parties to the proceedings separated. The relationships between the parties deteriorated following the separation. On 3rd February 2014, the mother and the child left England and went to Pakistan. On 13 Feb 2014, the proceedings under the Children Act were commenced in England. The question was whether the child was habitually resident in England. The English High Court and Court of Appeal held that the child was not habitually residing in England, stating that the English courts had no jurisdiction. The case reached the UK Supreme Court. On 3rd February 2016, the Court of Appeal’s judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court. Lord Wilson (with whom the majority agreed) held that: “49 In my opinion each of the following factors might contribute to a conclusion that B had by that date achieved the requisite degree of disengagement from her English environment: (a) B went to Pakistan with the respondent, who was her biological mother, her primary carer and the person who alone had parental responsibility for her; (b) Bs removal to Pakistan was lawful; (c) B knew that she was going to live in Pakistan; (d) part of Bs ethnic heritage was in Pakistan and certain members of her wider family, albeit unidentified, apparently remain living there; (e) the respondent took B to Pakistan in the genuine belief that they would have a better life there and with the intention that they would settle there; and (f) two months earlier the respondent had conducted a reconnoitre of possible arrangements for their future life in Islamabad. 50 In my opinion each of the following factors might contribute to a conclusion that B had not by that date achieved the requisite degree of disengagement from her English environment: (a) B had lived in England throughout the five years of her life; (b) she had never previously set foot in Pakistan; (c) her language was English and she barely spoke Urdu; (d) she was a British subject; (e) the appellant, who was a central figure in Bs life, indeed probably the second most important figure, had been left behind in England; (f) Bs removal was effected without the appellants knowledge, still less approval; (g) B was aware that her removal was to be kept secret from the appellant; (h) B retained significant emotional links with the appellant and feared that she would miss her following the move to Pakistan; (i) other important adult figures in Bs life, in particular both sets of grandparents and two aunts, together with various young cousins, had also been left behind in England; (j) the home in which B had lived throughout her life had not been sold and remained available for her immediate re-occupation with the respondent; (k) by 13 February 2014 B had been present in Pakistan for only nine days; (l) at that time she and the respondent had the right to remain there for only about three months; (m) they were then staying temporarily with a friend of the respondent; (n) no independent accommodation had by then been secured by the respondent; and (o) B was not then even attending school in Pakistan nor even registered with a school there. […] 51 I conclude that, taken cumulatively, the factors set out in para 50 are stronger than those set out in para 49 and compel a conclusion that on 13 February 2014 B retained habitual residence in England. […]” [2016] UKSC 4 [49-51].