Recherche de décisions

The parents were both Ukrainian nationals. They married in May 2018 and lived together in Cherniev, Ukraine. The mother and father travelled to western Ukraine for her to give birth to their child in April 2022. They later returned to Cherniev. 

In late 2022 or early 2023 the father’s mother and sister were granted visas and travelled to live in England under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Following agreement between the parents that this would be a temporary move, the mother and child also applied and were granted visas.  They travelled to England in January 2024 and initially lived with the same sponsors who had accommodated the father’s mother and sister the previous year. 

The mother and child settled in England, obtained housing, state benefits, medical care and nursery education, and formed family and community ties.

The parents’ relationship later broke down and the father argued that, from November 2024, the mother was wrongfully retaining the child in the United Kingdom. 

In June 2025 the father made an application for the return of the child to Ukraine under the 1980 Hague Convention. 

Return refused. Though the mother was indeed wrongfully retaining the child, by the time the father made an application for return the child was settled in England and habitually resident there. 

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

In November 2024 the child had been in England and Wales for 11 months, was enrolled in nursery and had a good network of family and friends. 

By this time, the factors that connected the child with Ukraine, whilst strong, were mostly concerned with her heritage and background, whereas those which connected her with England were to do with her immediate lived experience, that is to say her current residence at that time. 

The Judge acknowledged that the fact that many of the mother and child’s acquaintances/friends in England were other Ukrainian nationals did suggest a lack of integration, however, this was mitigated by the fact that the child was at nursery with what would have been a wide variety of local children.

Therefore, at the time of the retention the child was habitually resident in England and so there was no wrongful retention. 

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

The Judge also considered whether, should he be wrong about the habitual residence of the child, there would be a grave risk to them on return to Chernihiv. He concluded that the current risks of death, serious injury and psychological harm were too great, amounting to a grave risk within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b).