M and F disputed the return of their child D to Romania. F had obtained there an order for custody, and now appealed from refusal of the court here to recognise that order and enforce it. The judge had found that the proceedings in Romania had failed to allow adequate service of proceedings and opportunity to be involved both to M and D.
Held: The appeal failed.
The question of whether and how the child’s voice was to be heard in the proceedings was a separate question from the weight to be given to his wishes and feelings: ‘ . . the rule of law in England and Wales includes the right of the child to participate in the process that is about him or her. That is the fundamental principle that is reflected in our legislation, our rules and practice directions and jurisprudence. At its most basic level it involves asking at an early stage in family proceedings whether and how that child is going to be given the opportunity to be heard. The qualification in section 1(3)(a) [of the Children Act 1989] like that in article 12(1) [of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989] relates to the weight to be put upon a child’s wishes and feelings, not their participation.’
Moore-Bick VP CA, Ryder, Briggs LJJ
 EWCA Civ 12,  WLR 2469,  WLR(D) 44,  2 FLR 347,  3 All ER 770,  1 WLR 2469,  Fam Law 311
England and Wales
Appeal from – MD v AA and Another FD 31-Jul-2014
M appealed against English orders recognising and registering a decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal ordered that the custody of D who had lived with his mother in England since the age of eight weeks, should be transferred to his father in . .
Appeal from – In re D (A Child) SC 22-Jun-2016
F had obtained an order in Romania for the custody of D. F obtained orders initially for the registration and enforcement of that order, but the High Court reversed that saying that neither the child nor his mother had been given adeuate opportunity . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.559352