In cases of cross-border parental responsibility, borders do not merely divide States but also lives. Where different legal systems and perceptions of the child’s best interests intersect, jurisdiction emerges as the modern “apple of discord.”
This is evident from the recent Court of Appeal decision dated 12/3/2026 in Civil Appeal No. E58/25 (W. S. v. J. I. K.), which concerned parental responsibility with an international element, where the key issue was whether the Cypriot courts had jurisdiction to hear the case.
In the present case, the father filed an application for parental responsibility, seeking sole parental responsibility over his four minor children, as well as regulation of their residence and contact arrangements. Following the mother’s departure in 2021, the children had moved to and settled in Germany. This became the core of the dispute, as the father claimed that the relocation had taken place without his consent and characterized it as abduction. He reported the mother to the police and initiated proceedings under the Hague Convention for the repatriation of the children back to Cyprus. However, the mother argued that there had been an agreement between them for permanent relocation to Germany due to better living conditions and educational opportunities for the children.
During the first-instance proceedings, the Limassol Family Court examined a preliminary objection raised by the mother concerning lack of jurisdiction. The court held that, based on the relevant European regulation, the children’s “habitual residence” at the time the parental responsibility application was filed was no longer in Cyprus but in Germany. Significant factors in this assessment included the children’s long-term stay in Germany, their schooling there, their social integration, and the lack of day-to-day living in Cyprus.
Subsequently, the father appealed the first-instance decision before the Court of Appeal, arguing primarily that the lower court had improperly taken into account a decision of a German court which had rejected an application for the return of the children under the Hague Convention, despite that decision not having been recognized in Cyprus. He further argued that this decision should not have influenced the assessment of “habitual residence.”
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the first-instance court had not relied on the foreign decision in determining jurisdiction, but had merely acknowledged the fact of its existence. The substantive assessment of the lower court had been based exclusively on the factual circumstances of the children’s residence and on the concept of “habitual residence.” In support of this approach, the Court of Appeal adopted the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-523/07, where it was stated that habitual residence “corresponds to the place which reflects some degree of integration by the child in a social and family environment”. Consequently, the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance decision, finding that the Family Court had correctly ruled that it lacked jurisdiction, since the children’s habitual residence at the critical time was in Germany.
Therefore, the issue of court jurisdiction in matters of cross-border parental responsibility has intensified because of globalization and the continuous movement of people between States. Nevertheless, it remains a crucial legal issue that places the child at the center of the analysis while taking into account the child’s best interests and their actual integration into society.
Anna Demetriou – Advocate/Partner at Elias Neocleous & Co LLC / Member of the International Academy of Family Lawyers
Petros Papadopoulos – Advocate/Associate at Elias Neocleous & Co LLC