Where is a child’s home? Habitual residence and international families
For many international families, life is not centred on a single country. It is increasingly common for parents and children to divide their time between different jurisdictions, whether for work, lifestyle, education or climate. But if a relationship breaks down, where is a child’s home in the eyes of the law?
The recent case of KPW v MJQ[2026] EWHC 582 (Fam) provides valuable insight into how the court approaches this question and, in particular, how a child’s habitual residence may shift when a family moves between countries on a seasonal basis. Habitual residence is a key concept in international family law. It refers to the place where a child has established the centre of their life and interests. Habitual residence plays a crucial role in determining which country has jurisdiction to deal with disputes concerning children.
A family spread across three countries
The case concerned a child born to a British mother and American father whose life had been divided between Mexico and Alaska before she was brought to England by her mother.
After the child’s arrival in England, the father sought her return to Alaska. To succeed, he needed to establish that the child was habitually resident there before coming to England.
In considering that question, the court undertook a detailed examination of the family’s life in both Alaska and Mexico, providing a helpful illustration of the factors that are likely to carry weight in cases involving internationally mobile families.
Looking beyond mere physical presence
To determine habitual residence, the court considered the extent to which the family was genuinely integrated into each country and where their day-to-day life was rooted.
The judge considered the child and her parents to be ‘most familiar’ and well-integrated in Mexico as opposed to Alaska, with the family having social connections (which were not lost whilst they lived in Alaska) and belongings there, as well as both parents having the right to work there. The child spoke Spanish, had spent a substantial portion of her life in Mexico and the family had lived there together for several years.
By contrast, the judge felt the family’s ties to Alaska were less substantial. Although they spent time there and had belongings there, they lived with relatives and did not own or rent any property there. It was relevant that the mother, as the child’s primary carer, had no right to live or work in Alaska, no independent support network and little basic independence, lacking both her own bank account and private living space away from the father’s family.
The court also placed weight on the fact that the parents did not have an agreed settled intention to live more permanently there – there was a dispute between them as to whether the intention was for a permanent relocation. The mother argued that it was intended to be a seasonal arrangement, with the family spending summers in Alaska and winters in Mexico, prompted partly by concerns following a harrowing experience during the hurricane season in Mexico the previous summer.
Can a child have more than one home?
One of the most interesting aspects of the judgment is its recognition that modern family life does not always fit neatly within traditional concepts of residence. The court accepted that a family may become reintegrated into a country each time they return and that stable, settled residence can exist in more than one place over time. Accordingly, a child’s habitual residence may shift as families move between countries, depending on the extent of their integration into each jurisdiction.
While the judge acknowledged that the child could potentially have become habitually resident in Alaska, he considered that the evidence in this case did not support that conclusion. Instead, the family’s deep and ongoing connections to Mexico meant that the child’s habitual residence there revived upon her return.
Why the decision matters
Ultimately, the father’s application failed because the court found that the child was not habitually resident in Alaska at the date of the alleged wrongful retention in England. While the judge considered that the child later became habitually resident in England, that question was not central to the application.
The decision is significant for internationally mobile families because it recognises that habitual residence can shift between countries where a family genuinely divides its life between them. A child may become habitually resident in one country, then another, as the family reintegrates into each jurisdiction over time.
Determining a child’s habitual residence remains a highly fact-specific exercise. The court will consider the overall picture, including:
- where the child is socially and culturally integrated
- the stability and quality of the family’s connections to a particular country
- immigration and employment rights
- education, language and community ties
- the family’s living arrangements
- the parents’ intentions.
Planning ahead
Families who divide their time between different countries often assume that a child’s habitual residence is obvious. However, when relationships break down, this can quickly become one of the most contentious issues to resolve. The consequences can be significant, affecting which country has jurisdiction to determine arrangements for children and whether a child may be required to return to another country.
For internationally mobile families, early legal advice can be invaluable in identifying risks, clarifying the legal position and avoiding costly cross-border disputes.
The Forsters Family team regularly advises on international children matters, including habitual residence, relocation and cross-border family arrangements. If your family life spans more than one jurisdiction, seeking advice at an early stage can help you understand your options and protect your family’s position.
Subcribe to news and views
