PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

In the Matter of P (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1216

Details of the court

England and Wales, Second Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

25 July 2013

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The care proceedings were issued by the Local Authority. The proceedings were in respect of a child who had dual British and Bulgarian nationality. The father was British; the mother was Bulgarian. On 15 Feb 2013, HHJ Plumstead made a care and placement order for a 15-month old child. This was an appeal against his order. The appeal was made by the mother and the maternal grandmother. One of the grounds of appeal was that the case should have been transferred to the Bulgarian authorities. The appeal was dismissed. Lord Justice Ryder held: “27 The most recent authority on the implementation of this article is a case called Re K [2013] EWCA Civ 895, which followed the well-known advice of Munby J (as he then was) in AB v JLB [2008] EWHC 2965 (Fam). When an Article 15 consideration arises the decision to be made is based upon matters of fact to be put into the equation in relation to three questions. Those three questions are: whether the child has a particular connection; whether one jurisdiction is a better place to hear the case or a specific part of a case than another; and whether transfer is in the best interests of the child. 28 Taking each question in turn, M has a particular connection by virtue of Article 15(3)(c) of the Regulation because she has Bulgarian nationality. That equally applies to the jurisdiction of England and Wales because of her British citizenship. There is no priority of one nationality over another. As regards the second question — that is, who is better placed to hear the case — on unassailable grounds, having regard to the fact finding process that had already taken place, the habitual residence of mother, father and the child, the sources of evidence and the circumstances to be evaluated, that question was rightly determined by the judge to be the jurisdiction of England and Wales. The third question in my judgment followed from the first two. Having regard to the prima facie evidence of the independent social worker that was then before the court, there was nothing in relation to the exercise of jurisdiction by a Bulgarian authority which suggested that a transfer to Bulgaria would have been in M's best interest. Accordingly, I can find no merit in this ground of appeal and would again refuse permission in respect of same. [27-28]