Summary
The proceedings were concerned with the parental responsibility for a 2-year old girl. Her mother was Russian; her father was Portuguese. The parents were not married. The parental responsibility dealt with by a Portuguese court in December 2005. There was a settlement order.
The mother was the primary care, and the child was habitually residing in England. However, a dispute arose between the parties, and proceedings were initiated in England. The issue of jurisdiction and various provision of Brussels IIa were a subject to heated debates before the High Court.
Since the child was habitually resident in England, the English court assumed jurisdiction.
The High Court judgment did not appear to be reported, but the case reached the Court of Appeal on 1st March 2007. Lord Justice Thorpe held:
“5 […] There is really no room for argument but that article 8 of the Regulation rules. M has been here for well beyond the three-month period following her arrival in accordance with the Portuguese consent order; therefore if any judicial intervention is invoked it needs to be here in London, the place of the child's habitual residence.
6 Mr S has had to cope with this hearing without lawyers because he has already spent no less than £50,000 in pursuing his commitment to his daughter and Mr Setright tells us that the mother has spent £30,000. That is completely shocking, given that that sum could have been invested by the parents for the future education of their child, for instance, and we must therefore try and introduce a bit of reality into this case to bring the focus back where it belongs: that is on M and her welfare, and not on convoluted jurisdictional arguments. We must do what we can to ensure that the future is managed by these two parents for the benefit and welfare of M without further recourse to expensive litigation.” [5-6]