[2024] UKUT 128 (AAC)

A temporary absence from the local authority’s area did not defeat the ordinary residence test required by s.24. A temporary absence included an absence by reason of deployment in the armed forces.

First, there was an important distinction to be made between a permanent and a temporary move away from a local authority area. A permanent move might relieve a local authority from responsibility for a child, but a temporary move will not (R(G) at [133]).

Second, the features which had been identified in other contexts for deciding a child’s ordinary residence were helpful (R(G) at [133]). The judgment of the Supreme Court in A v A at [54] also provided a helpful pointer.

In the instant case, T was integrated into a social and family environment in Hampshire. He was not integrated into a family and social environment in Dubai. The only reason he was present in Dubai at all was because he was the dependent of his father, who was serving in the Royal Navy and who was deployed to Dubai by the Royal Navy on a temporary basis. T should, therefore, be seen as habitually resident at all material times in Hampshire for the purposes of s.24. The witness statement of his father supported that submission: