English Court Declares a Child Habitually Resident in the United Kingdom in an International Child Abduction Case Involving Ukraine

Janaína Albuquerque
22 hours ago
3 min read

Updated: 19 hours ago

International child abduction generally occurs when a child is taken to, or retained in, another country without the consent of the other parent or legal guardian. These situations are governed by the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980 Hague Convention), which establishes mechanisms of international cooperation to secure the child's prompt return to their country of habitual residence.

Under the Convention, the courts of the child's habitual residence have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the substantive issues relating to parental responsibility and custody. The courts of the State to which the child has been taken are responsible only for determining whether the removal or retention was wrongful and, if so, ordering the child's return. For this reason, determining a child's habitual residence is the cornerstone of the Hague Convention framework, although in practice it is often one of the most complex factual issues in these cases.

In such circumstances, courts may rely on Article 15 of the 1980 Hague Convention, which provides:

"The judicial or administrative authorities of a Contracting State may, prior to the making of an order for the return of the child, request that the applicant obtain from the authorities of the State of the habitual residence of the child a decision or other determination that the removal or retention was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention."

It was under this provision that the High Court of Justice of England and Wales delivered its judgment in The Mother v The Father [2025] EWHC 826 (Fam). The Court was asked to determine, for the purposes of Article 15, whether the child was habitually resident in England and whether the mother's removal of the child to Ukraine without the father's consent constituted a wrongful removal under the Convention.

The mother, a Ukrainian national, had moved to the United Kingdom to live with the British father following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. Their daughter was born in 2022, and the couple separated in 2023. The child lived with her mother during the week and spent weekends with her father. In July 2024, the mother travelled with the child to Poland, stating that they intended to visit an ill relative. The father, however, alleged that this explanation had been used to conceal her true intention of relocating permanently to Ukraine.

The father argued that the child had never previously lived outside England, was enrolled in a nursery school, and received routine medical care through a local healthcare provider. The mother, in contrast, contended that the child attended nursery for only four hours per week and that her cultural identity and daily life were primarily connected to Ukraine, reflecting stronger ties to that country.

The parties also disagreed about the significance of the mother's tenancy agreement. Because the lease was for one year but could be terminated on monthly notice, the Court considered that it was not a reliable indicator of whether her stay in England had been intended to be temporary or permanent. Nevertheless, the judge noted, to the mother's detriment, that she had never informed her landlord that she intended to leave the property. The father further argued that neither the mother nor the child had taken their belongings when they left England. The mother disputed this, explaining that their possessions had been packed and that she had later asked the father to send the boxes to Ukraine.

In resolving the dispute, the Court emphasized that the relevant question was the child's habitual residence, not the mother's. Having examined the evidence, the judge concluded that the child was clearly habitually resident in England. The Court observed that the child's connections with Ukraine were naturally explained by the fact that she came from a binational family and that her mother had maintained Ukrainian customs, including the language spoken at home and aspects of the child's daily routine.

Finally, regarding parental intention, the Court found no evidence that the mother had ever discussed with the father any plan to relocate permanently to Ukraine. The only agreement between the parties concerned a short trip to Poland. The Court therefore issued a declaration addressed to the Ukrainian authorities confirming its view that the child's habitual residence was in the United Kingdom and that her retention in Ukraine constituted a wrongful removal within the meaning of the 1980 Hague Convention.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you require guidance regarding your specific circumstances, please consult a qualified legal professional.