Re M and T
(Proposed Convention Adoption) Habitual Residence
[2015] EWFC B239 (16 July 2015) the court was concerned with children who had been in the care of their paternal aunt for 2 years. There were numerous legal irregularities relating to the placement in the first year and half of that placement. Keehan J decided that there had been no change in the children’s habitual residence during the period of time they had been living with their aunt and was satisfied that the children remained habitually resident in this jurisdiction. He also concluded that the children would not lose their habitual residence in this jurisdiction while the process for a Hague Convention Adoption was taken to the point of an Article 17 agreement. Given the similarities between that case and this (albeit I must note that the children in this case were subject to a placement order), it is instructive to set out what Keehan J stated below:-
“31.Ms. Cabeza on behalf of E submits that the facts of the cases in Re CM and Re S and T are very different to the facts of this case. I agree. The principle which I derive from those cases, and from the case of Re R, is that it is not sufficient simply to have regard to whether the children have achieved some degree of integration in a social and family environment. The stability of that placement is another factor to be considered. Moreover the court must take account of the duration, regularity, conditions and reasons for the stay in the territory of a member state.
32.I readily accept that the issue of habitual residence is a matter of fact. Accordingly, the mere fact that a child is a ward of this Court or is subject to orders requiring his return to this jurisdiction if the court so orders when, for example, granting permission pursuant to Section 28 of the 2002 Act to remove a child from the jurisdiction, that cannot of itself prevent the child from acquiring habitual residence in another country in which he stays with the leave of the Court. Thus a court order is not a trump card which precludes a child losing habitual residence in this country and/or acquiring habitual residence in another country.
33.In my judgment there are clear public policy considerations in respect of a child, whom the Court has given permission to stay with a family member or other person in another country for the purposes of an assessment, but over whom the court intends to retain jurisdiction, against him losing habitual residence by the mere effluxion of time when present in that other country. These considerations cannot prevent that child in appropriate circumstances as a matter of fact acquiring habitual residence in the other country. They are however factors to be considered when analysing the factual matrix.
34.I accept that since their arrival in the United States of America in August 2013 the children have undoubtedly achieved a degree of integration in the social and family environment of E. No doubt to a very considerable degree. There are, however, other factors which I must consider and in particular the stability of that placement, the reasons for their stay in the United States of America and the conditions of the same. At paragraph 45 he concluded: 45.
In all of the circumstances I am not satisfied that the children's stay or placement in the care of E has achieved or will during the currency of these proceedings achieve a significant degree of stability that results in the children, as a matter of fact, having acquired or acquiring habitual residence in the United States of America. Furthermore, their placement in her care is for the purposes of securing an adoption order in her favour which has not yet been approved or granted by this Court. 46.
Accordingly I am entirely satisfied that the children are and remain habitually resident in this jurisdiction. The position of the parties11. Dr. Morgan, for the local authority submitted that T’s habitual residence is now in the United States. With reference to the case law, including Mercredi v Chaffe (
Case C497/10PPU [2012] Fam 22,
A v A,
In Re R,
Re S and Re T (Intercountry Adoption: USA
[2015] EWHC 1753 (Fam) , Re M (Children)(Habitual Residence: 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention
[2020] EWCA Civ 1105 and Re M and T (Proposed
Convention Adoption)(Habitual Residence)
[2015] EWFC 239, he submitted that T had attained the necessary degree of integration into a social and family environment following her move to the USA after the making of the order of DDJ Orchover on 5 th November 2019. Indeed, in oral submissions he stated that her habitual residence changed almost immediately at that point. He contrasted this case with that of Re S, Re T where Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division concluded that two children who had been cared for by a maternal aunt in the US for two years had not become habitually resident there due to the fact that their presence had been intermittent and lacking in stability in particular because of the way in which the orders in that case had been expressed (and it is true that the judge referred to this in paragraph 62). Dr. Morgan referred me to paragraph 6 of the judgment where the wording of the orders of Sir Peter Singer were set out. The recitals included undertakings by the maternal aunt to return the children to the jurisdiction when called upon to do so, that the children remained wards of court, and that they were habitually resident in the United Kingdom. The orders in this case have not contained those recitals. He submitted that despite the orders permitting K to retain T out of the jurisdiction being time limited on each occasion, and needing to be renewed, nobody has ever raised the possibility of the child coming back to this country. 12. Dr. Morgan set out a number of factual matters upon which he relied in support of his case that T had acquired habitual residence, namely that it has been K’s home for a number of years and that she is settled and working there, K has friends there and so now does T, that K has obtained parental responsibility, that T has attended pre-school and school, that another aunt is in the US and T has had counselling and therapy, and is registered with doctors and dentists. T has been in the US (apart from a very few days), continuously since November 2019, and she also spent some weeks there between June and August 2019. Extensions to the permission to remain there have always been granted. The intention is, and has always been, for T to stay in the US being cared for by K. From T’s perspective – which is the perspective from which the court must view things, the USA is her home. 13. Ms Cabeza for T, supported by Ms Wood for K, argues that T’s situation means that she has not achieved habitual residence in the USA. Whilst it is true that she has been with K throughout and has become very attached to her, that she has indeed made friends, attended school, had counselling, and is registered for health and dental care, her situation has been precarious. Focussing on the child’s situation does not mean only looking at what the child is consciously aware of, but all the circumstances surrounding her presence in the US. The orders in this case may not have precisely declared that T’s habitual residence remained in this jurisdiction, or contained specific undertakings that she should be returned to the UK ‘on demand’ as in the case of Re S, Re T , but a reading of the orders and a consideration of the circumstances make it abundantly clear that T’s situation had not achieved either permanence or stability. This court retained jurisdiction and did not give K open ended permission to keep T in the US. Indeed Ms Cabeza pointed out that orders granting and extending permission for T to be in the US temporarily included a standard recital that removal from the jurisdiction without an order of the court could be a criminal offence. At no point was an order extending permission ever, or ever intended to be, a ‘rubber stamp’ exercise. Other individuals made applications for orders at various points, challenging the proposal that K care for T in the long term. The local authority made a public law application in August 2020. T has no permanent leave to remain in the US (the section 8 order here is not sufficient for the US immigration authorities) and indeed now she is an overstayer. T’s habitual residence14. In order to determine T’s habitual residence I must focus on her situation. After the death of her mother in late 2018, T was first looked after by a family friend, before being cared for by K. T first went to the US with K on 23 rd June 2019 where she stayed for about six weeks. She then returned to the UK in August 2019 and stayed until November when DDJ Orchover made a child arrangements order in favour of K, an order giving her parental responsibility and authorised T’s removal from the jurisdiction for six months. T left for the US on that day, then returned to the UK again in January 2020 for a few days. In the meantime, there were other applications before the court relating to T’s long term future. Her maternal grandmother made an application in March 2019, and her stepfather made one in May 2020. These have since been dismissed by agreement as all the family now support K’s wish to care for T long term. On 13 th August 2020 the local authority made applications for a care order, which were transferred to the Family Division in September. Since the original order by DDJ Orchover there have been orders extending K’s permission to keep T out of the jurisdiction. The current order is due to run out next week and I have renewed if for another short period. 15. T has been living with K at all times since June 2019 (I think there has been one house move), and she has attended school. She has had counselling, and been registered with a doctor and dentist. She has formed a strong attachment to K, and made friends. She has been on a three month visa, and until the current restrictions she had been brought back to the UK regularly to avoid going outside its terms. Because this has not been possible in recent months, T’s presence in the US is now unauthorised. At all times since 12 th February 2019 T has been the subject of proceedings in this country. 16. The background to this young girl going to live on the other side of the world is the tragic death of her mother. It is wonderful to read how T’s attachment to K has developed, but not much more than eighteen months ago this was a relatively new relationship, following the loss of T’s primary carer. The events of the last two years will have had an effect on T’s psychological stability, added to everything else. During the course of this hearing, I noticed that T had come into the room where K was attending the hearing (it must have been about 7am US time). T sat on K’s lap. K dealt with this with the greatest of skill and tact, but I could not help note a concern that a child of her age is quite capable of understanding that something is going on which relates to her future and her future care. I myself was worried that being able to hear some things being said could make T anxious and insecure. The hearing adjourned for a while and T went to school. Of course care is taken to avoid T being exposed to the litigation about her, but she must be aware of conversations going on, and meetings between her carer and other people. 17. T’s removal from this jurisdiction has only been permitted on a temporary basis. There have been no undertakings requiring K to return T to the jurisdiction if called upon to do so, but I do not accept Dr. Morgan’s submission that this or the lack of the type of wording used in the case of Re S, Re T or Re M and T is significant. T does not have a right of residence in the US and at present she is present there without authorisation. The US is not obliged by any international agreement or treaty to recognise and enforce the current residence order, and as noted by the US expert, Ms Steffas, it cannot be relied upon to gain a lawful immigration status for T in that country. 18. At all stages, T’s status and therefore the stability of her placement with K has indeed been precarious. There have been numerous court hearings since the private law proceedings commenced in February 2019 (looking at the chronology there appear to have been about 14 hearings to date). Other family members have made with a view to caring for T themselves. The last one of these was dismissed in July 2020, having been made in May 2020. No party questioned the jurisdiction of the court to make orders relating to T’s care and welfare, including (until very recently), the local authority. In the section 37 report compiled by the local authority in July 2020 the social worker stated ‘[T] is still habitually resident in the UK. Although she has been living in the USA with [K] since November 2019, she is obliged to keep re-entering the USA in order to renew her ESTA visa. We are therefore of the view that she is at risk of significant harm’. Following that report the local authority made an application for a care order on 13 th August 2020, and the application is still outstanding. 19. Although nobody apart from K has had parental responsibility for T since the death of the mother, neither this order or the child arrangements order has anything like the security of an adoption order, or even a Special Guardianship order. 20. Taking into account all the matters set out above, I do not consider that T has lost her habitual residence in this country and become habitually resident in the United States. I accept the submissions made on behalf of T by Ms Cabeza, supported by Ms Wood,