Habitual residence—general approach meaning

In this issue: Practice and procedure Domestic abuse Public children Financial provision International children Daily and weekly alerts New Practice Note New Precedent New Q&As Updated content Useful information Practice and procedure Speech by the President of the Family Division: Katherine Gieve Memorial Lecture—Cleveland: Deja Vu? The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, delivered the Katherine Gieve Memorial Lecture, titled ‘Cleveland: Deja Vu?’. Gender recognition (For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers) In For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16, the Supreme Court considered the text, context and purpose of the Equality Act 2010 in assessing whether, in practice, ‘sex’ should be understood as ‘certificated sex’. For Women Scotland Ltd, an organisation advocating for women’s and children’s rights in Scotland, challenged guidance issued by the Scottish Ministers on the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018. The guidance stated that trans women with a...

In this issue: Children's social care Public Procurement Social housing CQC weekly round up Education Social care Healthcare Governance Licensing Planning Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Children's social care Post adoption contact—where are we now? (Re S (Placement Order Contact)) In Re S (Placement Order Contact), the Court of Appeal closely examines how courts should approach sibling contact at the pre-adoption placement stage. Recent years have seen a move, supported by significant research, towards recognising the possible benefits for adopted children of preserving some direct links with their birth relatives. Even so, direct contact orders under section 26 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002) are still uncommon, with final care plans more typically providing for indirect or ‘letterbox’ contact. The Court of Appeal emphasises that whenever placement orders are made, the future contact arrangements must be individually assessed to address the complex, enduring needs...

This Practice Note This Practice Note outlines the narrow exceptions that can be advanced in response to an application pursuant to the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the 1980 Hague Convention), encompassing a child’s settlement in a new jurisdiction, consent, acquiescence or failure to exercise rights of custody by the left-behind parent, a serious risk of physical or psychological harm if return is ordered, and the child’s objection to return. It also addresses the courts’ overall stance in child abduction matters regarding the exercise of discretion and immigration considerations. A taking parent will frequently rely on more than one of the available arguments. Strictly speaking, although widely used, the label ‘defences’ is a misnomer; instead, there are narrowly drawn ‘exceptions’ to the ordinary consequences of a wrongful removal, rather than true ‘defences’ that exonerate a parent’s wrongful conduct. For practical guidance on proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention, see: Child abduction—introduction and issuing proceedings (1980 Hague...

This Practice Note This Practice Note explains how the courts handle applications under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (MFPA 1984) or under Schedule 7 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (CPA 2004) after a foreign divorce or the dissolution of a civil partnership, and highlights significant authorities in this context. It addresses the effect of delay, the necessity of a valid marriage and a recognised divorce/dissolution, and the court’s power to order interim maintenance (including provision for legal funding). The framework for determining the disposal of the substantive claim for financial relief following an overseas divorce or dissolution is governed by both the statutory scheme in MFPA 1984, s 18 (and the mirror provisions in CPA 2004, Sch 7 Pt 1) together with judicial guidance, most notably the Supreme Court’s ruling in Agbaje v Agbaje, which remains the leading case in this field. Before any application is made, the applicant must obtain the court’s leave (permission)...

This Practice Note offers practical guidance on the frequently debated question of which local authority should be designated for section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989). Specifically, it examines and clarifies: the distinct statutory criteria governing designation for both care orders and supervision orders in such cases for care orders, whether and to what extent A v A (Children: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre) influences the understanding of ‘ordinary residence’ in particular the operation of the ‘stop clock’ in ChA 1989, s 105(6), and the effect of amendments to ChA 1989, s 22 introduced by the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 on the definition of a looked after child in this context General principles The Family Court may not issue a care order or a supervision order in the abstract. Any such order must identify the local authority charged with the responsibility of caring for, or supervising, the child in question. The order must, therefore, designate...