In deciding whether it would be unduly harsh to expect an asylum seeker to relocate to a safe haven in another part of his country, consideration of conditions in the place of
habitual residence does not have to be the starting point of the assessment, the House of Lords has ruled.
Not exact matches
The Implementing Act
does not define the key term of «
habitual residence.»
If you or your ex-spouse
do not live or spend any time in the rented house then it isn't possible to claim the rented house as being a
habitual residence.
The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal by the non-biological mother of a seven - year - old daughter: the birth mother's unilateral decision to take the child to Pakistan to live
did not mean that child immediately lost her
habitual residence in the UK.
However, the Court
did not go further than this, as it had already been decided that B's place of
habitual residence was England when the Appellant commenced her initial Children Act application.
Courts must take such applications extremely seriously, especially if a child is likely to be taken to a country that is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, or that
does not return children promptly to their
habitual residence.
Courts taking this approach will decide that a child has acquired a new
habitual residence only if it is established that the parents had a shared and settled purpose to
do so.
On this basis, I had previously concluded that the ONCA was correct in determining that «a parent's consent to a time - limited stay
does not shift the child's
habitual residence» (at para 42).
(c) if the spouses
did not have a common
habitual residence, the internal law of the jurisdiction in which the spouse making an application for an order under this Part was most recently habitually resident.
Yet, the Convention
does not define «
habitual residence.»
However, the court left open the possibility that a consensual time - limited stay may be so long that it
does in fact change the child's
habitual residence.
The basis of the Divisional Court's decision was that the children's
habitual residence had changed from Germany to Canada during the consensual travel period, and thus the Hague Convention
did not apply.
The determinative paragraph of the Ontario Court of Appeal, at para 42, quotes a long established line of Ontario decisions that confirm that «a parent's consent to a time - limited stay
does not shift the child's
habitual residence».
The Divisional Court judge disagreed with the initial findings and concluded that the
habitual residence had changed from Germany to Ontario during the consensual, temporary travel period and that the Hague Convention
did not apply (at para 22).
(b) the circumstances in which parental responsibility for the child is attributed by operation of law to a person who
does not already have such responsibility are governed by the law applying in the country of the new
habitual residence; and
EU citizens, EEA citizens and Swiss nationals who are employed or self - employed in Ireland and who are paying into the Irish social insurance system
do not have to meet the
habitual residence criteria to qualify for One - Parent Family Payment.
This means that dependents
do not have to satisfy the
habitual residence condition in their own right.
The
habitual residence condition
does not apply to increases for qualified dependents (spouses, civil partners, cohabitants or children).
4 If the child's
habitual residence changes, the attribution of parental responsibility by operation of law to a person who
does not already have such responsibility is governed by the law of the State of the new
habitual residence.