Can habitual residence change mid-proceedings under the 1996 Hague Convention? – Edward Bennett in F v M & Anor (Jurisdiction) [2026] EWFC 219 (B)
5th Aug 2026 | Cases
Edward Bennett, instructed by Mills & Reeve, acted for the first respondent mother in F v M & Anor (Jurisdiction) [2026] EWFC 219 (B). The judgment provides a valuable reminder that, unlike the pre-Brexit Brussels IIA regime, jurisdiction under the 1996 Hague Convention can be lost during ongoing proceedings where a child acquires habitual residence in another contracting state.
The court considered whether a two-year-old child had ceased to be habitually resident in England and Wales during the course of highly contested private law proceedings.
Dismissing the substantive applications, HHJ Marin held that the child had become habitually resident in Lithuania, with the result that the English court no longer had jurisdiction to determine the outstanding child arrangements applications.
Applying the principles in Re F (A Child) (Habitual Residence) and Hackney LBC v P, the court emphasised that, unlike the former Brussels IIA regime, jurisdiction under the 1996 Hague Convention is not preserved once proceedings have commenced and may be lost if a child’s habitual residence changes.
Following a detailed global analysis of the child’s circumstances, the judge concluded that the child’s life, family integration and social connections were now centred in Lithuania. The judgment provides useful guidance on habitual residence, mid-proceedings jurisdictional change and the operation of the 1996 Hague Convention in international children cases.
