- Cited — X (Child abduction: habitual residence) 2022-11-01
“…les applicable to the determination of a child’s habitual residence originate in the decision of the CJEU in Mercredi v Chaffe (Case C-497/10PPU) EU:C:2010:829; [2012] Fam 22 and were expounded in a series of decisions of the Supreme Court, starting with A v A (Children: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Cen…”
- Cited — B (A Child) (Abduction: Habitual Residence) 2020-09-10
“…d that it reflects some degree of integration of the child into a social and family environment: see A's case [2010] Fam 42, paras 37 and 38; Mercredi v Chaffe [2012] Fam 22, paras 44 and 47-49 and OL v PQ (Case C-111/17PPU), paras 42 and 43.…”
- Cited — B (A Child) (Abduction: Habitual Residence) 2020-09-10
“…persons, and that that child necessarily shares the social and family environment of the circle of people on whom he or she is dependent: see Mercredi v Chaffe [2012] Fam 22, paras 53-55.…”
- Distinguished — M (Children : Habitual Residence : 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention) 2020-08-25
“…me degree of integration (as again referred to in A v A, drawing on Sir Peter Singer’s analysis of the CJEU’s decision in Mercredi v Chaffe (Case C-497/10 PPU) [2012] Fam 22) is, therefore, to distinguish habitual residence from temporary or intermittent presence. It is for the purposes of assessing what Lord Wilson described in In…”
- Considered — M (A Child) 2020-07-17
“… no habitual residence. The very object of the international framework is to protect the best interests of the child, as the CJEU stressed in the Mercredi case [2012] Fam 22. Considerations of comity cannot be divorced from that objective. If the court were to consider that the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction were necessary t…”
- Cited — G-E (Children : Hague Convention 1980: Repudiatory Retention and Habitual Residence) 2019-03-01
“…some degree of integration of the child into a social and family environment: see (Proceedings brought by A) [2010] Fam 42 , paras 37 and 38; Mercredi v Chaffe [2012] Fam 22, paras 44 and 47–49 and OL v PQ (Case C-111/17 PPU), paras 42 and 43.…”