Is a weaker animus than a domicil required for habitual residence?

The authors of Cheshire and North: Private International Law (10th ed.) adopt the terminology from Cruse v. Chittum (supra) and make the point that a weaker animus establishes “habitual residence” than is necessary for “domicile”. At page 187 it is said: “Indeed, it ought to be a requirement of present intention to reside unlike the intention required in domicil [sic] which is concerned with whether there is a future intention to live elsewhere. No more than a present intention to reside should be necessary for habitual residence and this ought to be assumed from the fact of continuous residence.”