Application for return of child — habitual residence — grave risk — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 95, 105 & 106 — Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction — Secretary for Justice v HJ [2006] NZSC 97, [2007] 2 NZLR 289, (2006) 27 FRNZ 213 — SK v KP [2005] 3 NZLR 590 — Punter v Secretary for Justice [2007] 1 NZLR 40 — LK v Director General, Department of Community Services [2009] HCA 9, 237 CLR 582 — Re F (A Minor) (Child Abduction) [1992] Fam Law 195 —Secretary for Justice v Sigg [1993] NZFLR 340 — Simpson v Hamilton [2019] NZCA 579 — LRR v COL [2020] NZCA 209, [2020] NZFLR 98 — A v Central Authority for New Zealand [1996] 2 NZLR 517 — Akau v Tilo [2019] NZFC 5746 — New Zealand Central Authority v Waldergrave [2019] NZFC 6196. The applicant mother sought an order from the Court for the prompt return of the parties' child to the United Kingdom (UK), pursuant to s 105 of the Care of Children Act ("COCA"). The applicant was from the UK and the respondent had lived in New Zealand for most of his life. The parties had met in the UK where the applicant became pregnant. There was a visit to New Zealand while she was pregnant, but she gave birth to the child in the UK. Subsequently the parties traveled to New Zealand to visit the respondent's parents, and there was some discussion about the applicant emigrating to New Zealand with her two children from previous relationships and some steps were made on this. The applicant returned to the UK in March 2020, leaving the parties' child in the care of the respondent in New Zealand. New Zealand's borders were closed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the applicant was unable to return to New Zealand. The respondent then ended the parties' relationship in June 2020, putting an end to the applicant's emigration application. At issue was whether the applicant's consent to the child's immigration to New Zealand was conditional upon the applicant and her two other children obtaining the necessary visas. If so, then the child's habitual country of residence had not changed from the UK and the Court would be required to order the child's prompt return to the UK; if not, whether the parties' actions were sufficient to conclude that the child's habitual place of residence had changed to New Zealand. If so, then New Zealand was the child's habitual place of residence and the application must be dismissed. The respondent initially filed the defence of "grave risk" to the child if returned, pursuant to COCA, s 106 but this was subsequently abandoned. The Judge considered the evidence of both parties and noted that the applicant's story had changed over time: initially, she had stated that there were no conditions to the child emigrating to New Zealand, but subsequently argued that there were conditions. The Judge also considered similar cases and the circumstances around the move, and the fact that the child had now spent 19 of his 21 months in New Zealand. The Judge concluded that the child's habitual place of residence was New Zealand. On this basis, the application for the return of the child to the UK was dismissed. Judgment Date: 2 March 2021. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *