A Teleological and Child-Sensitive Interpretation conveyed for example, in the nuanced, child-specific forms of harm now articulated in the context of persecution.16 Notwithstanding such developments, very little attention (other than the scholarly lead of Professors Michelle Foster and Hélène Lambert and a trickle of ensuing jurisprudence in several Commonwealth countries)17 has been given to the meaning of a country of former habitual residence from the perspective of stateless children born outside the country of nationality or former habitual residence of their parent(s). As pioneered by Foster and Lambert, this article posits that there are instances where stateless children born outside the country of nationality or former habitual residence of their parent(s) can be conceived, at the time of refugee status determination, as having a country of former habitual residence within the meaning of the refugee definition, notwithstanding that they have never before resided in that territory. This is possible in the context of forward-looking assessments of concurrent, yet individually assessed, family claims that hypothesise the child’s presence in the country of former habitual residence of their parent(s), in tandem with considerations of potential returnability and risk of persecution upon return. Having identified fundamental flaws in the application of the plain, ordinary meaning of ‘a country of former habitual residence’ to stateless children born outside the country of nationality or former habitual residence of their parent(s), this article explores a child-sensitive interpretation of that notion, as led by the trusty principles of interpretation espoused in art 31 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.18 A purposive interpretation of the phrase in its textural and historic context is pursued, having regard to subsequent state practice, including the outlier jurisprudence in Australia that finds it ‘proper’ and ‘sensible’ in the context of refugee status determination to imbue children with the same country of former habitual residence as their parent(s) and a recent iteration of New Zealand jurisprudence. 19 This article begins with a brief overview of the origins of the notion of a country of former habitual residence in its historical setting and in state practice. The faceless anonymity of children in the drafting history of the Refugee Convention is then outlined, with consideration as to how this has impacted upon contemporary understandings of the notion in effect, an inequitable lacuna for stateless children born outside the country of nationality or former habitual residence of their parent(s). On a progressive path to discerning a child-sensitive rendition of the notion, the article next explores the utility and purpose of the country of reference notion, both as a standalone and as an interconnected segment of the refugee definition, teasing apart indicia unique to adult lived experiences as distinct to indicia integral to the notion. A precis of child-specific indicia to inform the notion follows. The shared parent–child aspect and the reality that a child’s habituality and ties to a country territory are distinct to that of an adult are central to this assessment. Having regard to all of the aforementioned, it is concluded that, 16 17 18 19 United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), General Comment No 6: Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children Outside Their Country of Origin, UN Doc CRC/GC/2005/6 (1 September 2005) 21 [74]. Michelle Foster and Hélène Lambert, ‘International Refugee Law and the Protection of Stateless Persons’ (Oxford University Press 2019) 136–37, whose position is elaborated upon in Parts III and IV of this article. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331 (entered into force 27 January 1980). BV (Malaysia) [2021] NZIPT 801914–916. 11