Orders for return — wrongful retention of child — Hague Convention — habitual residence — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 15, 16 & 105 — In re J (A Minor) (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1990] 2 AC 562. The applicant father alleged that the respondent mother had wrongfully retained the parties' child in New Zealand. The applicant wanted the child to be returned to the United Kingdom. Therefore the onus was on him to show that the United Kingdom was the child's habitual residence. The respondent submitted that the child was not habitually resident in the United Kingdom, and that he actually had had no habitual residence before traveling with her to New Zealand. There was no definition of the phrase "habitual residence" in the legislation, meaning that the case had to be decided on the parties' circumstances. The evidence showed that they had moved frequently and had lived in three different countries. However the Court found that the child's habitual residence had been the United Kingdom for the first four years of his life. Further, the facts persuaded the Court that the United Kingdom had remained his habitual residence after the parties had moved to Italy for a time. It was only after arriving in New Zealand that the respondent had decided not to return to the United Kingdom and to separate from the applicant. The respondent had breached her guardianship obligations to discuss her change of mind with the applicant. The Court found that the United Kingdom was the child's habitual place of residence, and ordered that he be returned there. Judgment Date: 25 July 2023 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *