On May 26, 2015, the U.K. Supreme Court dismissed an appeal in AR v. RN, finding that when determining the habitual residence of a child for custody purposes, the intentions of the parents are only one factor to be considered.  The case concerned two children born in France, whose parent agreed to temporarily move them to Scotland with their mother for the period of a year, and whether they should be returned to France or kept in Scotland after their parents’ relationship ended before the completion of that year.  According to the press release, the case revolved around Article 3 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Convention), under which it is “unlawful to remove or retain a child in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person under the law of the state in which the child was ‘habitually resident’ immediately before removal or retention.”  The Court determined that in deciding habitual residence, “[t]here is no requirement that the child should have been resident in the country in question for a particular period of time or that one or both parents intend to reside there permanently or indefinitely.”  In the present case, the Court found that “the children were habitually resident in Scotland within the meaning of the Convention” and that “[t]he absence of a joint parental intention to live permanently in Scotland was not decisive, nor was an intention to live in a country for a limited period inconsistent with becoming habitually resident there.”