ED v SGD

"One question was what was to happen to the child in the event of a separation. Although the petitioner asserted that he expected the child to stay with him, such an arrangement could have been no more than an expectation. No concrete plans had been made."

[7] In coming to a decision on the issue of habitual residence, the Lord Ordinary cites a number of authorities. It is accepted that, in general, the Lord Ordinary directed himself correctly as to the tests to be applied in the determination of habitual residence. It is, however, necessary to quote in full what the Lord Ordinary says when he comes to apply the tests. He says:

[9] There were two affidavits lodged by the petitioner. The first is No. 6/2 of process in which the petitioner said, in paragraph 3:

[10] In a later affidavit, 6/7 of process, the petitioner describes the move in paragraph 10. His narrative includes a description of buying furniture for the flat along with his wife and an explanation that, although there were some items of furniture stored in Glasgow, the parties' life had not been "nomadic". He then states:

"I have said that I let my wife stay in our flat in Kreuzlingen to give her time to sort herself out. I realised that it would take a while. I knew she was planning to go back to the U.K. and I eventually, and I even offered to pay for a flat in the U.K. for her. We discussed divorce and I wanted to have financial matters and S's residence agreed before raising divorce proceedings. We discussed the situation fully. It was never my intention that S. should be taken to the U.K. even temporarily."