Jurisdiction Lost: Family Court Rules Child Became Habitually Resident In Lithuania During Ongoing English Proceedings

In F v M & Anor (Jurisdiction) [2026] EWFC 219 (B), the Family Court grappled with a complex international dispute involving a two-year-old child. Amy Rowe and Constance Tait acted for the child’s stepfather ("SF"), who successfully challenged the jurisdiction of the English court.

The proceedings concerned a child, P, born in England in 2024. The biological father ("F") sought a declaration of parentage, parental responsibility and child arrangements to share the care of P. The mother ("M"), supported by SF, sought permission to relocate permanently to the United States. Before those substantive issues could be determined, however, a fundamental question emerged: did the English court still have jurisdiction to decide them?

The dispute centred on P’s habitual residence under the 1996 Hague Convention. Since mid-2025, P had spent the overwhelming majority of her time in Lithuania, where she lived with her mother, received medical care, attended activities, and enjoyed close relationships with her maternal family. By contrast, her connection to England had become increasingly limited, consisting largely of visits only for contact with F.

A significant feature of the case was the international nature of the family’s life. M, a dual Lithuanian and US national, and SF, an American citizen, had longstanding personal and professional ties across several countries. Evidence before the court demonstrated that neither regarded England as a permanent base and that tax considerations had influenced their living arrangements for many years. The court accepted that the family had been transparent throughout the proceedings about their international lifestyle, their connections to Lithuania and their plans for the future.

The judgment contains a detailed review of the principles governing habitual residence under the 1996 Hague Convention. HHJ Marin emphasised that habitual residence is a factual assessment requiring a global evaluation of the child’s circumstances, rather than a mechanistic exercise. The court considered factors including the child’s integration into family and social life, the stability of her living arrangements, the nature of her relationships and the intentions of those caring for her.

Applying those principles, the judge concluded that P had ceased to be habitually resident in England and Wales and had become habitually resident in Lithuania, at the latest by September 2025. Lithuania had become her home, base and centre of life. England, the court found, was now simply a place she visited in order to see F.

F argued that P had not ceased to be habitually resident in England or, alternatively, the court retained jurisdiction because P’s presence in Lithuania was wrongful and engaged Article 7 of the 1996 Hague Convention. The court rejected that argument. HHJ Marin found that P’s move to and continued residence in Lithuania had occurred openly, had repeatedly been known to the English court and had not previously been criticised or prohibited. There was no evidence of deception, concealment or wrongful removal.

As a consequence, the English court held that it no longer had jurisdiction to determine the child arrangements and parental responsibility applications. The judge further dismissed the declaration of parentage application, finding that it was closely connected to the wider welfare issues and that it would be contrary to P’s interests for parallel litigation concerning her future to continue in different jurisdictions.

The decision provides an important reminder that, following Brexit, jurisdiction under the 1996 Hague Convention is not fixed at the start of proceedings. A child’s habitual residence can change during litigation, and where it does, the English court may lose jurisdiction before a final determination is reached. For internationally mobile families, the judgment is a significant illustration of the need to assess whether habitual residence has changed throughout cross-border children disputes.