Samantha Dunn represented the Local Authority in care proceedings where the child was Latvian. The Mother was represented by Hannah Mettam and the child was represented through their Guardian by Lianne Murphy. The Court determined that a two pronged approach to determining whether the English courts held sufficient jurisdiction to determine care proceedings was appropriate. Principally, the Court determined, in accordance with the mother’s case, that the matter should be heard in Latvia as habitual residence could not be established. It was held that the child was not “habitually resident” in the UK as the Mother had led a transient lifestyle since moving to the UK and she had failed to integrate the child into society. The child was not registered at school or with the GP. Accordingly, Mrs Justice Hogg felt that the child was therefore not habitually resident and therefore the English Court had no jurisdiction. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court was invoked to ensure the child was adequately protected until the child could be transferred to Latvia. Even if this was not accepted, the Court determined that Article 15 should be implored because the Latvian Courts would be best placed to make welfare determinations for this child as the family were already known to the Latvian Courts.