On 4 December 2025, the Supreme Court of Finland ruled on the determination of a child’s habitual residence for the purposes of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil aspects of international child abduction. As is well known, the Convention aims to ensure the prompt return of a child to the State of habitual residence immediately prior to the abduction or wrongful retention, with the objective of protecting the continuity of the child’s living conditions and preventing one parent from unilaterally causing significant changes in the child’s family environment.

In the case at hand, two parents and their 21-month-old child had moved from Australia to Finland pursuant to an agreement providing for a subsequent permanent relocation to China. Two weeks after arrival, the father took the child to a shelter without the mother’s consent. The mother requested the child’s return to Australia, invoking her revoked consent.

The Supreme Court found that, at the date of the alleged wrongful retention, the child’s previous habitual residence in Australia had ceased as a result of the parents’ jointly agreed and implemented decision to move permanently abroad, whereas the residence in Finland could not be considered established due to the short duration and temporary nature of the stay.

The Court held that a child’s habitual residence is a factual concept, determined on the basis of the centre of the child’s family and social life, and cannot be inferred from parental agreements concerning the child’s future placement. It further clarified that consent to a permanent relocation cannot be unilaterally revoked to support a return claim for wrongful retention. Applying these principles to the case, the Court excluded the possibility of ordering the child’s return to Australia, thereby overturning the decision of the Court of Appeal.

From the cross-border nature of the dispute stems a close connection with pluralism. The Court had to balance the interests of the parents and the child within a context of multiple legal systems and differing cultural settings, preventing the parents from unilaterally determining the child’s habitual residence.

 

(Comment by Pietro Campana)