London has long been home to international families. However, political change and reforms to the UK’s tax regime have meant that determining whether England is truly a family’s “home” is an issue with which the courts are increasingly required to grapple. The question is relevant not only to spouses who are going through, or are about to go through, a divorce, but also in proceedings concerning their children.

The introduction of the statutory residence test and the abolition of the non-dom regime have altered the way many high-net-worth families structure their lives. It is not uncommon for such families, particularly where there are no children or where the children have not yet reached school age, to divide their time each year between three or four countries. This peripatetic lifestyle brings with it many advantages, but also complications, particularly when the music stops and a relationship breaks down. Arrangements carefully structured for tax purposes may have quite different and unintended consequences in family law.

For a divorce to take place in England and Wales, the court must have jurisdiction. The relevant statutory grounds principally concern the spouses’ domicile and habitual residence, although the precise requirements vary depending on the ground relied upon. Establishing jurisdiction is also a separate question from whether England is the appropriate forum in which the divorce should proceed.

Domicile, a concept recently revisited by the Court of Appeal in Ferrara v Ferrara, can produce surprising outcomes. In broad terms, domicile reflects the jurisdiction with which a person has their most enduring connection and, in the case of a domicile of choice, where they intend to reside permanently or indefinitely. Although rooted in principles developed in an era of imperial service, the concept continues to have considerable practical importance.

In Ferrara, an Australian-born wife who had lived with her Italian husband in Italy for seven years, having moved there following Brexit, was nevertheless found to have retained an English domicile of choice and was therefore entitled to pursue divorce proceedings here. The Court of Appeal accepted that, notwithstanding the family’s relocation to Italy, the wife had not abandoned her intention ultimately to return to England. The decision illustrates how spouses long since removed from England may nevertheless retain access to the English court and its potentially more generous approach to financial provision on divorce. Whether England is the appropriate forum for those proceedings is, however, a separate question.

Habitual residence, by contrast, is concerned with where a person’s life is centred and where they are integrated. In determining the issue, the court considers a multitude of factors. Some are obvious, such as where a person works or where their children attend school. Others are more subtle, extending to where they choose to see their hairdresser or dentist, where they receive medical treatment, or even which country is the return destination on airline tickets. No single factor is determinative, and the number of days spent in a particular country is not necessarily decisive. Indeed, a person’s residence for tax purposes may be quite different from their habitual residence for family law purposes.

For spouses and families with young children who move between homes in different countries, the question of habitual residence can be far from straightforward. Where a family spends 120 days in England but the remainder of the year in France, Spain or Switzerland, there may be several competing candidates for habitual residence. A spouse wanting to divorce in England may need to explain why, notwithstanding the relatively limited time spent here, England remains the centre of their life.

In proceedings concerning children, the court again looks to habitual residence, but it is the habitual residence of the child that is relevant. Although this will often coincide with that of their parents, particularly where children are very young, it is a separate question requiring consideration of the child’s own circumstances. The intentions of the parents are relevant but do not necessarily determine the answer.

The difficulties faced by internationally mobile families were illustrated in KPW v MKQ, a 2026 High Court decision concerning a young child whose family divided its time between Mexico and Alaska. The court recognised that where a family regularly moves between countries, without a permanent base in either, a child’s habitual residence may change as the family moves. Although the court did not find that the child’s habitual residence had changed on every occasion, the case illustrates how the legal position may shift even where the family’s underlying pattern of life remains broadly unchanged.

For highly mobile families, questions of jurisdiction can resemble a game of musical chairs. Life proceeds normally while the music plays, but when the relationship breaks down the music suddenly stops and the court must determine where the parties, and perhaps more importantly their children, are habitually resident. As in the game, one parent may already have begun to eye up the chair they want to sit on in expectation of the music ending, whilst the other may have carried on oblivious to the significance of seemingly innocuous decisions or agreed changes which, unbeknown to them, have strengthened the other’s case.

This uncertainty can make an already difficult situation incredibly distressing. That is particularly so where the music stops with the parties’ child or children physically present in a jurisdiction that one parent does not consider to be home. A parent who believed that the family was simply spending time abroad may find that the child’s habitual residence has changed, with potentially significant consequences for which court can determine arrangements for the child and whether an application for their return can be made under the Hague Convention.

In an increasingly international world, where families are more mobile than ever before, questions of domicile and habitual residence are likely to become both more common and more contentious. For those families living across borders, planning and understanding what happens when the music stops may be just as important as deciding where to live while it is still playing.

Bryan’s article was originally published in Family Law Week, here.