Reserved judgment — habitual residence — date of retention — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 95, 105, 106 & 107 — Basingstoke v Groot [2007] NZFLR 363, [2006] 26 FRNZ 707 — Langdon v Wyler [2017] NZHC 2535 — O v R [2018] NZHC 2696 — Punter v Secretary for Justice [2007] 1 NZLR 40 — SK v KP [2005] 3 NZLR 590 — Gurnani v Gurnani [2017] NZFC 9986 — Punter v Secretary for Justice [2004] 2 NZLR 28. The parties were the parents of a son (the child). They had met while the applicant mother, who was from the United States, was studying in New Zealand. After becoming pregnant she traveled to the US, and eventually returned to New Zealand to complete her studies some two and a half years later. The applicant now wanted to return to her native United States and take the child with her. She wanted any care and contact issues to be resolved in the US, while the respondent father wanted them to be resolved in New Zealand. The respondent submitted that the child was not habitually resident in the US. The applicant disagreed, saying that the child had been born in the United States and had spent more than half of his life there before coming to New Zealand. The applicant stated that there had been an understanding between her and the respondent that the applicant would ultimately return to the US with the child. However the Court found that the applicant had been determined to complete her studies in New Zealand, and at one point had also anticipated a possible shared-parenting arrangement with the respondent. The applicant had made a considerable commitment to living in New Zealand, given that when she returned she had a young child who was in preschool and who might have already begun school by the time the applicant completed her studies. By the time of the hearing, the child probably had few memories of life in the US. The Court found that the child was habitually resident in New Zealand. The application that the child be returned to the US was declined. Judgment Date: 2 August 2023. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *