French mother and British father and two boys lived in England near London.
Mom and Dad divorced. Mom got custody of the eleven and twelve year old boys.
Although the boys didn’t speak any French, Mom decided to move them all to France.
Boys not happy. Boys complained to Mom.
Boys go on summer vacation to England for visitation with Dad.
Boys announce they will not return to Mom in France.
Mom brings return proceeding under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
UK Court rules that the boys were quite firm in their strong objections to living in France, making for a “very exceptional” situation that warranted allowing them to remain in England without any ruling from a French court.
The Mother’s argument that the boys were habitually resident in France within the meaning of the Hague Convention and therefore France had jurisdiction to determine custody was all but ignored.
The British Court prohibited the Mother from appealing it’s ruling.
One reason the boys gave for wanting to remain in England was that they “would not have as much homework”.
What better basis for a child custody ruling?