The High Court recently affirmed that children of foreign military personnel can become habitually resident in England and Wales regardless of their parents’ diplomatic status or the temporary nature of their posting.
Facts:
Two American children, a twelve-year-old boy (AA) and a two-year-old girl (BB), were living in East Anglia with their parents, who were both employed at an RAF airbase leased to the USAF. Although the family were US citizens who paid American taxes and were only in the UK due to a military posting, they had been resident in an English town for approximately seven years.
The legal proceedings were triggered in May 2025 when the younger child, BB—who had recently been adopted from Bulgaria and brought to the UK following a brief naturalisation visit to the US—was hospitalised with a serious head injury.
Medical examinations subsequently revealed a subdural haematoma along with healing fractures to her wrists and spine, leading Norfolk County Council to initiate care proceedings and take both children into protective custody.
Decision:
The High Court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the care proceedings and that both AA and BB were habitually resident in England, despite their American citizenship and military upbringing. This was based on AA’s seven years of life in East Anglia and the fact that the family’s only current home was in the UK.
Furthermore, the Judge rejected the parents’ application to stay the proceedings in favour of the US. Under the principle of forum conveniens, the Court decided that England was the most appropriate venue for trial because the injuries occurred there and all the crucial medical and social work witnesses were based in English hospitals and agencies. The Judge emphasised that the events giving rise to the proceedings took place in East Anglia.
A major part of the Judge’s logic was protective. The Court was concerned that if it declined jurisdiction, the children would be left in legal limbo. The US Embassy confirmed that custody is a state-level issue, and the family had no specific home or connection to any single US State which would result in the risk of a “legal vacuum,” whereupon the children might be left without protection from any jurisdiction. The airbase was not “sovereign territory” and had no family courts of its own. If the English Court did not act, then no other court was currently empowered to protect the children, which would be contrary to their best interests.
Implications:
The implications of this judgement are significant for international families, particularly those serving in the military or diplomatic capacities. It clarifies that physical presence and social integration often outweigh citizenship and professional intent when determining which country has the power to protect a child.
The case confirms that families living on leased military bases do not live in a jurisdictional vacuum or on “foreign soil”. Even if a parent is in the UK involuntarily due to military orders, the Court will look at the objective reality of the child’s life. If a child has lived in England for several years, they are likely to be considered habitually resident there, regardless of their “temporary” visa status.
This judgement demonstrated that courts will not decline jurisdiction if doing so leaves a child unprotected. As the US handles child welfare at the state level, families without a connection to a specific state are at risk. This judgement implies that English courts will step in as the “court of necessity” to ensure children are safeguarded when no other specific court has currently claimed the case. Moreover, the ruling sets a high bar for moving a case to another country when the medical evidence is local.
