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 Romania. The order was registered for enforcement here.
Held: Recognition of the Romanian order would be refused. The order had been made without the child having an opportunity to be heard as to his wishes, and M had herself not been served with notice of the proceedings in any way which would have allowed her to have taken part to resist F’s application
Peter Jackson J
[2014] EWHC 2756 (Fam), [2015] 1 FLR 1272
Bailii
Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 (Brussels II Revised Regulation 2003)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – D (A Child) (International Recognition) CA 27-Jan-2016
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 . .
At first instance – 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.
Children, International
Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535493