Norfolk County Council v YY (mother) [2025] EWFC 480

Background 

This case concerns an American family with two children: AA, a boy aged 12, and BB, a girl aged two. The parents and AA are US citizens. They lived in East Anglia by virtue of the father’s military posting for 7 years - the parents worked on an airbase leased to the US Air Force and lived off base nearby. BB was born in Bulgaria; she was adopted by the parents via a US adoption agency and moved to England on 11th March 2025. Thereafter BB suffered a serious head injury, and healing fractures to her wrists and spine were identified, causing concern for the children’s welfare. 

Care Proceedings 

Proceedings were initiated by Norfolk County Council on 15th May 2025. Both children were initially placed in foster care and later returned to their parents under the supervision of their paternal grandfather and aunt. The interim care order was replaced by an interim supervision order on 25th June 2025.

The parents argued that they and AA were habitually resident in the US and BB’s habitual residence followed theirs, therefore the courts of England and Wales had no primary jurisdiction to intervene under Article 5 of the 1996 Hague Convention. Alternatively, the parents contended that the court should decline to exercise jurisdiction and stay the proceedings by applying the forum conveniens principles. Norfolk County Council and the Children’s Guardian opposed the parents’ position. 

Decision 

Habitual Residence

When determining habitual residence, the question for the court was: whether there was ‘some degree of integration’ by the child in a social and family environment in the UK? 

The family’s lack of permanence and autonomy with regards to where they were based was not significant in circumstances where the family had lived in East Anglia for seven years, without a home elsewhere. Despite extended family and friends in the US, they did not have any current connection to a particular state. The family’s life revolved around the airbase, however it was not a sovereign base, nor did it cater for all of their needs. Although AA attended a school on the airbase which followed the US curriculum and term dates, his physical environment was in the UK where he had a substantial durable connection. It was common ground that BB had lost her habitual residence in Bulgaria. Given BB’s age and circumstances, her status reflected her parents’ habitual residence in this country. Accordingly, the parents and the children were found to be habitually resident in England and Wales on 2nd July 2025. 

Forum Conveniens

As for the forum conveniens, the established principles in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Consulex [1997] AC 460 applied. The question for the court was: In which forum could the case most suitably be tried, in the interests of the parties and justice?

Rejecting the contention that the UK was not the forum conveniens, the court noted the events which gave rise to the proceedings had occurred in this country. Those events led to the involvement of English professionals (medical clinicians, social workers and the Children’s Guardian), all of whom may have to give evidence if a contested hearing ensued. Therefore, it was not more appropriate or suitable for the case to be tried in the US. The forum conveniens was the jurisdiction of England and Wales. 

N.B. After this decision was reached, with agreement from the parties, the family returned to the US for the father’s new posting. The US authorities were notified and safeguarding measures were to be introduced. Norfolk County Council’s application for a care order was withdrawn.

Norfolk County Council v YY (mother) [2025] EWFC 480 judgment

The respondent mother was represented by Richard Little (instructed by Stephanie Halford of Oslers Solicitors). 

Case note written by Ellie Andrews. 

30th Jan 2026

Ellie Andrews

Call Pupil

Richard Little

Call 2000