Briton facing forced separation from baby son after Sweden orders his deportation

Sweden has rejected Montgomery’s application to remain and made a simultaneous decision that he should be deported. The ruling matters because he is the father of a 16-month-old child who lives in Sweden and is a German citizen through his mother. Montgomery says he stays in Sweden to parent, not simply to live there.

The agency first said he had not shown “actual care” because the baby mainly stayed overnight with his mother. The court upheld the decision, saying regulated immigration interests outweighed his family life. It also said he could visit Sweden visa-free and maintain contact from abroad. Montgomery currently sees his son three days a week, with overnight stays expected soon.

If deported, Montgomery could be separated from his son’s ordinary routine and face uncertainty about returning. He is appealing to the higher migration court. He also says he cannot safely leave Sweden now to visit elderly relatives, fearing he could be blocked from coming back.

“Actual care” is the evidence used to assess whether a parent has a real, active relationship with a child who is an EU citizen. In Montgomery’s case, it mattered because he applied for residence as the child’s father. The phrase was not treated as automatic proof that a parent qualifies to stay. Authorities examined how much practical care he provided.

The migration agency said there was no evidence of actual care when Montgomery applied, because his son was six months old and still stayed overnight with his mother. Montgomery says he saw the child three days a week and shared legally recognised joint custody. His lawyer argued that the court interpreted actual care too narrowly.

The article does not give a broader legal definition beyond this dispute. It shows that regular contact, shared custody, and daily involvement may still be contested when one parent is the child’s main resident carer. The higher migration court will consider Montgomery’s appeal.

Montgomery provides direct care three days each week. He says he is actively involved in his son’s care and daily routine, rather than merely visiting occasionally. This level of involvement is central to his argument that living in Sweden is necessary for family life and cannot be replaced by short visits from abroad.

He and the child’s mother have legally recognised joint custody. They agreed a parenting arrangement through discussions with the municipal family law service. The plan increased Montgomery’s time as the child grew older and no longer needed night-time breastfeeding. Overnight stays are expected to begin soon, according to Montgomery.

The arrangement existed alongside the child mainly living with his mother when the residence application was decided. That fact led the migration agency to say there was no evidence of actual care. Montgomery and his lawyer argue that the broader pattern of regular care and shared responsibility should count. His appeal is still pending.

The migration agency and court balanced Montgomery’s family life against Sweden’s interest in regulated immigration. They concluded that immigration control carried greater weight in the proportionality assessment. The decision was based primarily on his failure to show that he met the conditions for residence as a family member of an EEA citizen.

The agency rejected his application when his son was six months old. At that time, the child still stayed overnight with his mother, and the agency said Montgomery had not proved “actual care.” The authorities also reasoned that he could enter Sweden visa-free and maintain a relationship with his son through visits. The court upheld that reasoning this month.

Montgomery says the approach ignores his current role, including care three days a week and upcoming overnight stays. His lawyer says leaving would create instability during the child’s critical attachment phase. Montgomery is appealing to the higher migration court, so the residence dispute is not yet final.

If Montgomery had to leave Sweden, his son’s relationship with him could shift from regular care to occasional visits. Montgomery currently sees the child three days a week, helps with daily routines, and expects overnight stays to start soon. He says those responsibilities require him to be physically present, not simply able to enter Sweden for short visits.

The migration agency and court said visa-free entry would let him continue visiting. Montgomery calls that reasoning unrealistic because visits from abroad would not preserve his existing parenting schedule. His lawyer says deportation would undermine the process, create instability, and interfere disproportionately with family life. They also stress that the child is an infant in a critical attachment phase.

The article does not state exactly how often visits would occur after deportation. It does show that Montgomery fears losing reliable access and cannot currently leave safely to visit his 98-year-old grandmother. His higher-court appeal may determine whether he can remain and expand his care.

The possible EU-law route comes from the child’s German citizenship. Montgomery argues that, as the father of an EU citizen, he has freedom-of-movement rights connected to his son. He says he is in Sweden to be with the child, not because he simply wants to settle there. His case therefore links residence to maintaining the child’s family life.

His son is German through his mother, and the parents share legally recognised joint custody. Montgomery says he provides care three days a week under a stable parenting plan. His lawyer argues that forcing him to leave would weaken the child’s relationship with him and interfere with family life protected by international law.

This possible right has not been accepted by the Swedish authorities. The migration agency and court said he had not demonstrated the conditions for residence as a family member of an EEA citizen. Montgomery is appealing to the higher migration court, which may assess his freedom-of-movement argument.

Brexit matters because British citizens’ residence in EU countries could depend on when they moved and which legal protection applied. The article says Montgomery moved to Sweden after Brexit. As a result, he was not entitled to residency rights under the Brexit withdrawal agreement, the route he might otherwise have relied on.

Instead, Montgomery applied to remain because he is the father of an EU citizen. His son is German through his mother, and Montgomery argues that this gives him EU freedom-of-movement rights. He says his purpose in Sweden is to be with his child. The migration agency rejected that application, and the migration court upheld the decision.

The article does not describe the withdrawal agreement’s full rules or provide a general figure for affected British citizens. It establishes only Montgomery’s position: moving after Brexit left him outside its residency protection. His remaining route is an appeal to the higher migration court based on family life and EU-law arguments.