More families than ever split their lives between different countries, whether for work, schooling or lifestyle reasons. But when parents separate, that way of life can raise difficult legal questions - particularly about where a child is legally considered to live.
A recent High Court decision, KPW v MJQ, offers helpful guidance.
In that case, a family divided their time between Mexico and Alaska. When the relationship broke down and the mother stayed in England with the child, the father tried to have the child returned to Alaska under international child abduction rules.
The court refused. Despite time spent in Alaska, the child’s day‑to‑day life and strongest connections were in Mexico. That, the judge said, was the child’s “habitual residence”.
Why does this matter for parents?
Whether a child is considered habitually resident in one country or another can determine:
- which country’s courts deal with the case
- whether a parent can force a child’s return after an international move
- how quickly urgent applications are decided
The key message from the court was a practical one. What matters most is not long‑term plans or nationality, but where the child’s real life is taking place at the relevant time.
If your family lives across borders, or you are worried about an international move following separation, early advice is essential. Our family team at Stevens and Bolton regularly advises on cross‑border children cases and can help you understand your options.
