The recent decision in F v M & Anor (Jurisdiction) [2026] EWFC 219 (B) provides an important reminder that habitual residence can change during proceedings, with potentially significant consequences for jurisdiction. Annie Wogel, senior associate at Mills & Reeve, who assisted on the case, considers what the judgment means for international children disputes.
International children cases often begin with a fundamental question: where is the child habitually resident, and which court should determine arrangements for them? In practice, however, that answer is not always as straightforward, or as fixed, as it may initially appear.
I assisted on F v M & Anor (Jurisdiction) [2026] EWFC 219 (B), where a recent decision of the Central Family Court demonstrated how a child’s habitual residence can change during proceedings, with significant consequences for jurisdiction.
The child was born in England and was initially habitually resident in England and Wales. During the proceedings, however, the court found that she had become habitually resident in Lithuania. The case highlights an important practical point: establishing jurisdiction when proceedings begin is not necessarily the end of the analysis.
The post-Brexit position
This is particularly important in the post-Brexit context, because the approach under the 1996 Hague Convention differs from the position that applied under Brussels IIa.
Under Brussels IIa, the principle of perpetuatio fori generally meant that once jurisdiction had been established, it was retained until proceedings concluded or were transferred. Under the 1996 Hague Convention, the position is different; jurisdiction can change if a child ceases to be habitually resident in one contracting state and becomes habitually resident in another.
The court considered this in light of Hackney London Borough Council v P and others [2023] EWCA Civ 1213, which confirmed the position under Article 5.
The significance of this distinction becomes clear when considering what happened in this case. Establishing jurisdiction when proceedings begin does not necessarily settle the issue for the duration of the case.
A developing concept of habitual residence
Here, the court found that the child had become habitually resident in Lithuania in June 2025 or, alternatively, by September 2025. By 5 July 2026, she had spent 419 days in Lithuania compared with 301 days in England, with more than 80% of her time spent in Lithuania from June 2025 onwards.
In reaching its conclusion, the court considered the child’s family relationships, care arrangements, activities, language, home environment and degree of integration in Lithuania, alongside her comparatively limited connections to England.
What I think is particularly important is that there was no single factor that determined the outcome. The court considered the child’s circumstances as a whole, and those circumstances had developed over time.
This is especially relevant where a child has connections to more than one country and their living arrangements and integration can change significantly while proceedings are ongoing.
The practical implications for ongoing proceedings
For me, one of the clearest lessons from this case is the need to keep jurisdiction under review.
Where a child’s living arrangements change significantly during proceedings, it is important to consider whether this has altered their habitual residence and, in turn, the court’s jurisdiction. This is particularly important in cases involving very young children, whose circumstances may develop quickly.
In this case, the court also considered and rejected an argument that the child had been wrongfully removed or retained in Lithuania under Article 7. It ultimately found that she was no longer habitually resident in England and Wales and dismissed the child arrangements applications.
The judgment also considered applications for a declaration of parentage and parental responsibility. Although the court retained jurisdiction over these matters under domestic law, it found that they were closely connected to the child arrangements proceedings and dismissed them in England and Wales.
This highlights that the consequences of a change in jurisdiction may extend beyond the main child arrangements application. Practitioners should therefore consider the wider jurisdictional picture as proceedings develop, rather than treating jurisdiction as an issue resolved at the outset.
The wider relevance of international relocation
The case also has wider relevance given the number of people considering international relocation. Our recent research found that 47% of UK adults have considered moving overseas long-term or permanently, while 21% are likely to do so within the next five years.
Yet, just 6% would seek legal advice on child custody arrangements and 4% on how divorce and separation laws differ between countries, compared with 51% seeking advice on visas and residency.
This highlights the importance of early advice where a proposed relocation could affect a child’s habitual residence or the jurisdiction in which future proceedings are determined.
Ultimately, this judgment demonstrates that jurisdiction cannot always be treated as a preliminary issue that is resolved at the start of proceedings. Where a child’s circumstances evolve, so too may their habitual residence and the court’s jurisdiction.
In cases involving more than one country, carefully tracking how those circumstances develop over time can be critical to determining which court should hear the case.
About the author
Annie Wogel is a senior associate in the family team at Mills & Reeve, specialising in international family law, including children matters, relocation and jurisdiction. Annie advises clients on a broad range of family law matters, from divorce and associated financial issues, to children matters, cohabitation disputes between unmarried couples, and pre-nuptial agreements. She acts for high-net-worth individuals and is experienced in dealing with cases involving complex business structures and international assets.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of Today’s Family Lawyer.
