A Teleological and Child-Sensitive Interpretation VII A CHILD-SENSITIVE APPROACH TO DEFINING A COUNTRY OF FORMER HABITUAL RESIDENCE In similar terms to that found in BV (Malaysia),127 for the stateless child born outside the country of nationality or former habitual residence of their parent(s), the notion of a country of former habitual residence crystallises at the point of refugee status determination through the shared parent–child aspect in the forward-looking inquiry. The relevant indicia for the notion include (a) the discriminatory denial of the child’s right to a nationality, or some other discriminatory denial of core human rights in the country of former habitual residence of their parent(s),128 and (b) the ability to enter and reside in that country of former habitual residence — in effect, latent indicia which are activated by the persecution and well-foundedness components of the refugee definition. For children, who do not have the same benefit of time as adults to establish territorial connections, the tangible and evidentially established fact of their ability to enter and remain in a designated country owing to their relationship with their parent(s) means their presence may, at the time of refugee status determination, be hypothesised in that country through a forward-looking lens. The future tense of the substantive protection inquiry signals the redundancy of the linguistic ‘former’ in the notion of a country of former habitual residence for stateless children born outside the country of nationality or former habitual residence of their parent(s). Metaphorically speaking, this linguistic qualifier is simply the optional waistcoat in the national dress for stateless persons, as demonstrative of their effective territorial ties. This interpretation abides by the protection rationale of the refugee definition, premised on principles of non-discrimination and equality of status as between stateless adults and children, and children born with or without a nationality. It is principled and effective, reconciling the text to its contemporary international legal context. It also ensures fidelity to the non-refoulement principle and relevantly enlivens a necessary segment of the refugee definition in danger of ossifying for stateless children born outside the country of nationality or former habitual residence of their parent(s). VIII CONCLUSION This article has identified an unprincipled protection gap in the literal interpretation of the notion of a country of former habitual residence within the refugee definition. The subset of stateless children who have been born outside the country of nationality or former habitual residence of their parent(s) and cannot access refugee protection may be refouled to serious harm should they be returned to a parent’s designated country. Even with access to a statelessness regime, they would not be afforded the more comprehensive protections of refugee status. This article has charted a principled and protection-sensitive interpretation of the notion of a country of former habitual residence that appreciates child-distinct patterns of habituality and experience with time and recognises that the effective centre of a child’s life may, in certain instances, be better expressed in terms of persons than 127 BV (Malaysia) (n 19). 128 See ibid, wherein the inclusion of other discriminatory denials of human rights in such criteria is an extension from the finding on the facts. 31