Category: Children

Joyce v Joyce: FD 16 May 2013

Orders had been made for the return of three boys by the father to ther mother in Ireland. F had failed to comply with three earlier orders. M now said that he was in contempt.
Held: ‘ it is quite clear that it is a case that has raised strong emotions and that the father is very opposed to the children returning to the mother in Ireland; further that his cooperation with the court process has been partial, leaving it really up to the boys to say ‘no’, and standing behind that. What has to be understood, when children are sent back to jurisdictions from which they have been wrongly removed, is that proceedings can still take place in that other court whereby, if it is in their interests, the children can be given permission to depart from that jurisdiction and go to a different jurisdiction and carer. That is all this case is about. It is not making a final decision as to where they should live. It is just deciding which court should take the decision. I have observed the father carefully in court. I have formed the view that it is really inconceivable that he does not know where the children are. I am sure he does know where they are, or at least that he knows how they can be contacted and located. I did at the end of his evidence specifically direct that he tell me where they are and I find him to be in contempt in not giving the court the assistance which the court has required of him.’

Bodey J
[2013] EWHC 1353 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales

Children

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.515535

DL v EL (Hague Abduction Convention: effect of reversal of return order on appeal): FD 17 Jan 2013

F sought the return of his son K to the US. K had been brought here by M after a court order in the US,but the father subsequently appealed sucessfully, obtaining an order for K’s return. M said that the UK court had originally and correctly found K to be habitually resident in the UK, and that her bringing him here was not wrongful, being in pursuance of the court order.
Held: Return was refused. There is now no distinction to be drawn between the test according to our domestic law, the test expounded by the ECJ Court of Justice of the European Union in Proceedings brought by A (Case C-523/07 [2010] Fam 42 and Mercredi v Chaffe (cited above) and the autonomous law of the Hague Convention.
Sir Peter Singer compared the French and English texts of the judgment, which showed that the French text had almost throughout used ‘stabilite’ rather than permanence and in the one place where it did use ‘permanence’ it was as an alternative to ‘habituelle’.

Sir Peter Singer
[2013] EWHC 49 (Fam), [2013] Fam Law 521, [2013] 2 FLR 163
Bailii
Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mercredi v Richard Chaffe (Area of Freedom, Security And Justice) ECJ 22-Dec-2010
ECJ Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 – Matrimonial matters and parental responsibility – Child whose parents are not married – Concept of ‘habitual residence’ of an infant – . .

Cited by:
At First Instance – Re KL (A Child) SC 4-Dec-2013
How should the courts of this country react when a child is brought here pursuant to an order made abroad in proceedings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction which is later over-turned on appeal? K was a . .
Cited – A v A and another (Children) (Children: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening) SC 9-Sep-2013
Acquisition of Habitual Residence
Habitual residence can in principle be lost and another habitual residence acquired on the same day.
Held: The provisions giving the courts of a member state jurisdiction also apply where there is an alternative jurisdiction in a non-member . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, International

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.515531

In re M (A Child): CA 17 Sep 2013

The father who had brought proceedings uunder the Hague Convention for the return of M, appealed against an order allowing the use ofblood tests to deermine whether he was M’s father.
Held: The appeal succeeded in the absence of evidence as to the law and practice in Latvia, and: ‘ a determination of paternity is best carried out in a welfare context and by the Court of the child’s habitual residence. In my view such a determination should only be made in the context of a Convention application if it is clear that that is necessary for the purpose of a decision which the Court has to make. That was not so here. In the first place, the Respondent might succeed in showing that the case fell outside article 3 on one of the other bases advanced by her. But, even if she did not, it does not follow that the Appellant’s rights of custody at the material time under Latvian law depended on whether he was the biological father. He was named as the father on the birth certificate; he had acted for most of Lina’s life as a de facto father; and the Respondent had consented to the making of a Court order on the explicit basis that he was the father. It would not be in the least surprising if on any one or more of those grounds he would fall to be treated in Latvian law as having rights of custody at the moment of removal, even if they might subsequently be lost as a result of his being shown not to be the biological father. Indeed I would go so far as to say that they put the burden squarely on the Respondent to show, by reference to specific evidence of Latvian law, that he was not entitled to be so treated.’

Longmore, Underhil, Macur LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1131
Bailii
England and Wales

Children

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.515283

Re R (A Child): CA 6 Sep 2013

Appeal against discharge of prohibited steps order preventing the mother taking the child to Kenya on holiday. The father believed the child would be kept there. Kenya is not a signatory to the child abduction convention.

Patten, NcFarlane, Floyd LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1115
Bailii
England and Wales

Children

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.515013

In re W (A Child): CA 21 Feb 2013

The mother appealed against an order that she should not have contact with her newborn child. The father was said to have threatened to gather a mob to recover the child from wherever the baby was taken to. The order was made because of her continued relationship with the father and the threat of violence toward professionals.
Held: The order had been made under great pressure and required full justification, but such had been given: ‘There are emergency situations such as this which do not allow the luxury of adjournment to enable parties to file evidence, to prepare positions statements, a decision has to be taken there and then and it is unthinkable to my mind that this court should interfere where the judge has had regard to the relevant factors. It would be quite impossible to say that the judge’s conclusion was plainly wrong. She was urged in that direction by the guardian for a start so despite the excellent submissions made by Ms Meachin on behalf of the appellant and equally excellent submissions from Mr Allen for the father, I would simply dismiss this appeal. ‘

Thorpe, Pitchford, Kitchin LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 314
Bailii
England and Wales

Children

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.514994

In Re L (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence); In Re V (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence); In Re M (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence); In Re H (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence); In re L, V, M and H (Children): CA 21 Jun 2000

When considering contact applications after domestic violence, the approach should be child centred, and according to the criteria in the Act. The circumstances of the violence should be looked into, and the potentially damaging effect of contact with a violent parent should not be underestimated. The parent’s possible contribution to the child and facing up to the reality of what had happened should be allowed for. Still domestic violence was not an absolute bar to contact. The term ‘parental alienation’ is unhelpful, and is better thought of as outright hostility.

Butler-Sloss LJ, Thorpe LJ, Waller LJ
Times 21-Jun-2000, Gazette 03-Aug-2000, [2000] Fam 260, [2000] Fam Law 615, [2000] EWCA Civ 194, [2000] 4 All ER 609, [2000] 2 FCR 404, [2000] Fam Law 603, [2001] 2 WLR 339, [2000] 2 FLR 334
Bailii
Children Act 1989
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – The Father v The Mother, O by Cafcass Legal; In re O (a Child) (Contact: Withdrawal of application) FD 12-Dec-2003
The father sought to withdraw his application for contact, but the court took the opportunity to explain some points relating to contact disputes.
Held: Such disputes engender very deep feelings. Courts must ensure contact with both parents . .
Cited – In re H (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence), Ali v Hussain (Guidelines Re Allegations of Domestic Violence Appended) CA 22-Nov-2005
The mother appealed against an order granting contact to the father. There had been allegations of domestic violence.
Held: The family courts had been subject to much criticism. It was important where there was some evidence of poor practice . .
Cited – Payne v Payne; P v P CA 13-Feb-2001
No presumption for Mother on Relocation
The mother applied for leave to return to New Zealand taking with the parties’ daughter aged four. The father opposed the move, saying that allowing the move would infringe his and the child’s right to family life. He had been refused residence.
Family, Children

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.81981

London Borough of Camden v Caratt and Others: FD 31 Jul 2013

The court was asked whether the provisions of article 15 of Council Regulation(EC) Bo 2201/2003, commonly known as Brussels II Revised and hereafter ‘BIIR’, may be used to facilitate a transfer of proceedings between jurisdictions within the United Kingdom.

[2013] EWHC 2336 (Fam), [2013] Fam Law 1531
Bailii
England and Wales

Children

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.514457

Re C (A Child), AB v DE: FD 15 May 2013

Application for a parental order in relation to a child C born in 2012 under section 54 of the 2008 Act 2008. A parental order had been made, and the judge now gave his reasons. C was conceived through IVF treatment in Moscow, with the First Applicant’s sperm and eggs from an anonymous Russian donor. He was carried by a married Russian surrogate mother. She and her husband were the Respondents to this application.
Held: Theis J said: ‘His welfare needs would clearly not be met by the Respondents remaining his legal parents in this jurisdiction, when they are not so recognised in their own jurisdiction and have no intention of having any future parental role in C’s life. C’s future is in the long term care of the Applicants, they are his de facto legal parents and his welfare demands their relationship is given lifelong security which can only be achieved by making a parental order.’

Theis DBE J
[2013] EWHC 2413 (Fam)
Bailii
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 54
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – In re X (A Child) (Surrogacy: Time Limit) FD 3-Oct-2014
Extension of Time for Parental Order
The court considered the making of a parental order in respect of a child through surrogacy procedures outside the time limits imposed by the 2008 Act. The child had been born under Indian surrogacy laws. The commissioning parents (now the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.514449

R v P (No 2): FD 14 Mar 2019

Mother’s application to change X’s surname to that of her second husband. Originally it was to replace X’s current surname, but her revised position is for X’s current surname to be retained as a middle name, thereby continuing that connection with her father’s surname. The second matter is the father’s application, under article 21 of The Hague Convention, for an order that he could spend time and have contact with X.

Theis J
[2019] EWHC 2175 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales

Children

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.648634

Re M (A Child) sub nom PM v MB and M (a child): CA 31 Jul 2013

‘Since 1 December 2013 and by section 4(1) CA 1989 as inserted by section 111 Adoption and Children Act 2002, an unmarried father acquires parental responsibility by the inclusion of his name on the child’s birth certificate. That legislative change accompanied society’s recognition of and expectations for the exercise of parental responsibility by parents who are not married or in a civil partnership and who have separated with the consequence that the child does not live with one or other of them. It has become more common for parental responsibility to be considered by a court before other substantive welfare decisions are made because it is an important status which is an incident of the family and private lives of the adults and child concerned and which is reflected in the way in which parents should exercise their responsibilities for their child. It should be rare for a father not to be afforded this status.’

Lloyd, Beatson, Ryder LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 969
Bailii
Children Act 1989, Adoption and Children Act 2002 111
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Re D (A Child) CA 26-Mar-2014
F appealed against the removal of his parental responsibility for his son. M and F were not married, but F had been named on the birth certificate. He had later been convicted of sexual assaults against two daughters of M by an earlier relationship. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children

Updated: 18 November 2021; Ref: scu.514245

M v F and H: FD 5 Jul 2013

The court considered the legal parentage of a child conceived after his mother (Ms M) met his biological father (Mr F) on an internet website where Mr F was advertising his services as an unpaid sperm donor. The central dispute between the mother and the father is whether the conception was the result of artificial insemination (as he says) or sexual intercourse (as she says). If conception was the result of sexual intercourse (known as natural intercourse or NI) Mr F will be the legal parent of the child, but if it was the result of artificial insemination (AI) the question of parentage depends on the effect of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.

Peter Jackson J
[2013] EWHC 1901 (Fam)
Bailii
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008
England and Wales

Children

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513770

DL v EL: CA 16 Jul 2013

M had returned to the UK with her child on the strength of a US court order. F appealed successfully and now sought an order from the UK court for the return of the child.
Held: F’s appeal against refusal of an order failed. Acting under the court order M had acted lawfully, and the later reversal of that order did not work to make the removal unlawful. The court noted that the report in English of the Mercredi case included the word permanent as a condition of ‘habitual residence’, but the original word used in French was ‘stabilite’ which did not carry the same connotation.

Thorpe, Arden, Beatson LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 865, [2013] WLR(D) 285
Bailii, WLRD
Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 Sch 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mercredi v Richard Chaffe (Area of Freedom, Security And Justice) ECJ 22-Dec-2010
ECJ Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 – Matrimonial matters and parental responsibility – Child whose parents are not married – Concept of ‘habitual residence’ of an infant – . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Re KL (A Child) SC 4-Dec-2013
How should the courts of this country react when a child is brought here pursuant to an order made abroad in proceedings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction which is later over-turned on appeal? K was a . .
Cited – A v A and another (Children) (Children: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening) SC 9-Sep-2013
Acquisition of Habitual Residence
Habitual residence can in principle be lost and another habitual residence acquired on the same day.
Held: The provisions giving the courts of a member state jurisdiction also apply where there is an alternative jurisdiction in a non-member . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, International

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513393

Ward v Byham: CA 16 Jan 1956

The parties were the parents of an illegitimate daughter. The child lived with the father at first, but the mother requested the child to be returned to her. The father agreed subject to a letter saying: ‘Mildred, I am prepared to let you have Carol and pay you up to andpound;1 per week allowance for her providing you can prove that she will be well looked after and happy and also that she is allowed to decide for herself whether or not she wishes to come and live with you. She is well and happy and looking much stronger than ever before. If you decide what to do let me know as soon as possible’. Both parents subsequently married third parties. The father later stopped making payments. The mother brought the action to recover the payments. The father replied that there had been no consideration for his promise since the mother was only doing what she was already obliged to do in law.
Held: The defence failed.
Lord Justce Denning said: ‘ I have always thought that a promise to perform an existing duty, or the performance of it, should be regarded as good consideration, because it is a benefit to the person to whom it is given. Take this very case. It is as much a benefit for the father to have the child looked after by the mother as by a neighbour. If he gets the benefit for which he stipulated,, he ought to honour his promise; and he ought not to avoid it by saying that the mother was herself under a duty to maintain the child.’

Denning, Morris, Parker LJJ
[1956] EWCA Civ 1, [1956] 2 All ER 318, [1956] 1 WLR 496
Bailii
National Assistance Act 1948 48
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Crowhurst And Mary His Wife v Laverack 20-Nov-1852
The father and mother of an illegitimate child entered into an agreement for the maintenance of the child. He was to contribute on the basis that she would otherwise care for the child. The mother later married, and she and the father now sought . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Contract

Updated: 16 November 2021; Ref: scu.262831

R v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Disclosure of Asylum Records): FD 18 Nov 2019

The correct legal principles to be applied and the correct procedure to be adopted where one party to private law proceedings under s 8 of the Children Act 1989 seeks disclosure and inspection of documentation from the successful asylum claim of the other party, for use in the family proceedings.

Mr Justice MacDonald
[2019] EWHC 3147 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales

Children, Immigration

Updated: 16 November 2021; Ref: scu.648701

Re L (a child) (Medical Treatment: Benefit): FD 1 Nov 2004

(Date)

Dame Elizabeth Butler Sloss
[2004] EWHC 2713 (Fam), [2005] 1 FLR 491
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Portsmouth NHS Trust v Wyatt and others FD 7-Oct-2004
Charlotte Wyatt was born prematurely, and depended for day to day her life on medical support. Her doctors asked to be permitted not to resuscitate her again if she needed it. Her parents asked that she be given whatever chance was available for her . .

Cited by:
Cited – Wyatt v Portsmouth NHS Trust and Another FD 21-Apr-2005
Charlotte Wyatt had been born very premature and so severely disabled that her doctors sought and obtained an order that she should not be revived if she died. She had survived several months longer than expected and her parents had noticed . .
Cited – Wyatt and Another v Portsmouth Hospital NHS and Another CA 12-Oct-2005
The appellants’ daughter had been born with very severe disabilities. Her doctors obtained an order allowing them a discretion not to ventilate her to keep her alive if necessary. She had improved, but the family now sought leave to appeal an order . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Health

Updated: 15 November 2021; Ref: scu.226136

R, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Croydon: Admn 10 Feb 2012

The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal by the defendant to treat him as a ‘former relevant child’ within the meaning of section 23C of the Children Act 1989. Were he to be so treated he would be entitled to a range of services under the Children Act.

Thirlwall J
[2013] EWHC 4243 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Immigration, Children

Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.511043

C v D and Another: FD 28 Sep 2018

Application by C, the mother of B, a child born in 2012, for orders (a) removing the father’s parental responsibility, (b) a change of surname, and (c) for an extension of a non-molestation order which was made in November 2017.

[2018] EWHC 3312 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales

Children

Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.631453

W v X (Jurisdiction In Matters of Parental Responsibility): ECJ 15 Feb 2017

Habitual Residence depends on child’s interests

ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility – Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 – Articles 8 to 15 – Jurisdiction concerning maintenance obligations – Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 – Article 3(d) – Conflicting judgments given in the courts of different Member States – Child habitually resident in the Member State of residence of his mother – The courts of the father’s Member State of residence without jurisdiction to vary a decision that has become final which they adopted earlier concerning the residence of the child, maintenance obligations and contact arrangements

R. Silva de Lapuerta, P
[2017] WLR(D) 113, [2017] EUECJ C-499/15
Bailii, WLRD
Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 8
European

Children, International

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.579667

Mabon v Mabon and others: CA 26 May 2005

In the course of an action regarding their residence arrangements, the older children of the family sought an order to be allowed separate legal representation, and now appealed a refusal.
Held: The rights of freedom of expression and to participate in family life now outweighed the former paternalistic view of the courts. As children grew older and more articulate it made less sense not to hear their voices. The three children who sought separate representation were aged 17, 15, and 13. It was unthinkable that they should not be involved in deciding their own futures. The practice hitherto had been paternalistic. The guidance in re S was now 12 years old, and much had changed since. As to the significance of the child’s understanding: ‘In my judgment the rule is sufficiently widely framed to meet our obligations to comply with both article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, providing that judges correctly focus on the sufficiency of the child’s understanding and, in measuring that sufficiency, reflect the extent to which, in the 21st century, there is a keener appreciation of the autonomy of the child and the child’s consequential right to participate in decision making processes that fundamentally affect his family life . . . Although the tandem model has many strengths and virtues, at its heart lies the conflict between advancing the welfare of the child and upholding the child’s freedom of expression and participation. Unless we in this jurisdiction are to fall out of step with similar societies as they safeguard article 12 rights, we must, in the case of articulate teenagers, accept that the right to freedom of expression and participation outweighs the paternalistic judgment of welfare’.

Thorpe, Latham, Wall LJJ
Times 02-Jun-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 634, [2005] 3 WLR 460, [2005] 2 FLR 1011
Bailii
Family Proceedings Rules 1991 9.1A
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In re S (A Minor) (Independent Representation) CA 1993
Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: ‘Different children have differing levels of understanding at the same age. And understanding is not absolute. It has to be assessed relatively to the issues in the proceedings. Where any sound judgment on these issues . .

Cited by:
Cited – Axon, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Another Admn 23-Jan-2006
A mother sought to challenge guidelines issued by the respondent which would allow doctors to protect the confidentiality of women under 16 who came to them for assistance even though the sexual activities they might engage in would be unlawful.
Cited – In re K (A Child) FD 16-May-2011
The court was asked whether K, a 13-year-old girl, should attend the hearing of an application by her local authority to keep her in secure accommodation for three months. She wanted to be at the hearing, but the local authority opposed her . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Litigation Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.225876

MK (Somalia) and others v Entry Clearance Officer and Another: CA 19 Dec 2008

The appellants’ mother had been thrown into a well after resisting attempts to rape her. They had then been cared for by another family member who had, along with her natural children been granted asylum here. They appealed refusal of asylum. They could not bring themselves with rule 27. They said that the sponsor was their de facto family, and that their Article 8 rights were infringed, relying on customary international law. The appellants argued that a ministerial statement as to policy extensions survived the later introduction of new rules.
Held: The statement had not considered de facto adoption. That issue had been addressed under the 2000 Rules which superceded any previous policy, and there was no free-standing policy operating outside the Immigration Rules which accrued to the particular advantage of de facto adoptive children who fall outside paragraph 309A.
However the applicants’ article 8 case had not been properly considered by the AIT, which might find this a compelling case. The case was remitted accordingly.
Maurice Kay LJ concluded: ‘Do these documents establish or evidence an obligation of customary international law that is positively protective of de facto adopted children? In my judgment they do not. At best they illustrate an increasing awareness of the need for a flexible approach to the concept of family but they do not address in terms the question of de facto adoption which, because of its very lack of formality, presents a receiving state with obvious problems of verification. There is no material referred to by Mr Pleming which demonstrates a clear international consensus about the particular problem of de facto adoption – quite the contrary. Whilst there is a perceptible concern that the concept of family, in the context of family reunion, should not be resistant to social and cultural change, I do not consider that there is a precise, identifiable obligation of customary international law that is prescriptive of the national approach to de facto adoption.’

Waller LJ, Thomas LJ, Maurice Kay LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 1453, Times 11-Mar-2009, [2009] 2 FLR 138, [2009] Imm AR 386, [2009] Fam Law 196
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8, Immigration Rules 2000
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – AS (Somalia) and Another v Entry Clearance Officer, Addis Ababa and Another CA 29-Feb-2008
When considering an appeal against the refusal of entry clearance, the court must consider only the circumstances as applied at the date of the refusal. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Mahad (Previously referred to as AM) (Ethiopia) v Entry Clearance Officer SC 16-Dec-2009
The claimants each sought entry to be with members of their family already settled here. The Court was asked whether the new Immigration Rules imposed a requirement which permitted third party support by someone other than the nominated sponsor.
Cited – AA v Entry Clearance Officer (Addis Ababa) SC 18-Dec-2013
The appellant child, AA sought entry as the de facto adopted child of his sponsor who had previously been given refugee status. The sponsor had taken parental responsibility of AA under the Islamic Kafala procedure. AA had been admitted under human . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Children, Human Rights

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.278981

AR v RN (Scotland): SC 22 May 2015

The court was asked whether it should order the return to France of two little girls who have been living with their mother in Scotland since July 2013. The issue arose under article 3 of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as incorporated into the law of the United Kingdom by the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985. The Inner House had concluded that Scotland had become the habitual residence of the children, and they should be returned to France.
Held: The Father’s appeal failed. The major characteristice of an habitual residence was not the degree of permanence, but rather the stability of that residence.

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes
[2015] UKSC 35, [2015] 2 FCR 570, [2015] 2 FLR 503, 2015 Fam LR 54, [2015] 3 All ER 749, 2015 SLT 392, [2016] AC 760, [2015] Fam Law 777, 2015 GWD 17-289, 2015 SCLR 471, [2015] 2 WLR 1583, UKSC 2015/0048
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985
Scotland
Citing:
Appeal from – AR, Re An Order Under The Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 SCS 14-Nov-2014
(Extra Division, Inner House – Opinion of Lord Malcolm) – appeal in application for order of return of two children to their father in France. The partis disputed whether Scotland had become habitually resident in Scotland, and also whether the . .
Cited – A v A and another (Children) (Children: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening) SC 9-Sep-2013
Acquisition of Habitual Residence
Habitual residence can in principle be lost and another habitual residence acquired on the same day.
Held: The provisions giving the courts of a member state jurisdiction also apply where there is an alternative jurisdiction in a non-member . .
Cited – Re KL (A Child) SC 4-Dec-2013
How should the courts of this country react when a child is brought here pursuant to an order made abroad in proceedings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction which is later over-turned on appeal? K was a . .
At Outer House – In Re AR (An Order Under The Child Abduction And Custody Act 1985) SCS 17-Jun-2014
The two girls were with their mother in Scotland. The father, living in France, sought their return to France:
Held: The court granted the father’s application. The Lord Ordinary: ‘After considering all the relevant evidence I am satisfied . .
Cited – A (Area of Freedom, Security and Justice) ECJ 2-Apr-2009
ECJ Judicial co-operation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility – Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 . .
Cited – Mercredi v Richard Chaffe (Area of Freedom, Security And Justice) ECJ 22-Dec-2010
ECJ Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 – Matrimonial matters and parental responsibility – Child whose parents are not married – Concept of ‘habitual residence’ of an infant – . .
Cited – In Re H (Children) (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) CA 29-Jul-2014
The father appealed against refusal of an order requiring the mother of his children to return them to this country from Bangladesh.
Held: The appeal failed. There is no longer any rule that where two parents had parental responsibility for a . .
Cited – C v M ECJ 9-Oct-2014
ECJ (Judgment) Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 – Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil . .

Cited by:
Cited – Re B (A Child) SC 3-Feb-2016
Habitual Residence of Child not lost
(Orse In re B (A Child) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening)) The Court considered the notion of habitual residence. The British girl with same sex parents had been taken to Pakistan, and her mother here sought her return. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, International

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.547067

Zouch, Ex Dimiss Abbot And Hallet v Parsons: 23 Nov 1765

Contract by Children for Necessities

Lord Mansfield said that: ‘miserable must the condition of minors be; excluded from the society and commerce of the world; deprived of necessaries, education, employment, and many advantages; if they could do no binding acts. Great inconvenience must arise to others, if they were bound by no act. The law, therefore, at the same time that it protects their imbecility and indiscretion from injury through their own imprudence, enables them to do binding acts, for their own benefit; and, without prejudice to themselves, for the benefit of others.’

Lord Mansfield
[1765] EngR 89, (1765) 3 Burr 1794, (1765) 97 ER 1103
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Fisher v Brooker and Others HL 30-Jul-2009
The claimant sought a share in the royalties from the song ‘A whiter shade of pale’ but had delayed his claim for 38 years. He had contributed the organ solo which had contributed significantly to the song’s success. He now sought a share of future . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Children

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.373850

Lavida And Others v Greece: ECHR 30 May 2013

The case concerned the education of Roma children who were restricted to attending a primary school in which the only pupils were other Roma children.
Held: Violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education)
The Court found that the continuing nature of this situation and the State’s refusal to take anti-segregation measures implied discrimination and a breach of the right to education.

7973/10 – Chamber Judgment (French Text), [2013] ECHR 488
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights

Human Rights, Children, Discrimination, Education

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.510736