PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

Kent County Council v IS, LS, MAS, MOS, JS, SS (By their Children’s Guardian) [2013] EWHC 2308 (Fam)

Details of the court

England and Wales, First Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

03 May 2013

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

In August 2012, care proceedings were initiated in respect of 5 children. The children were Roma Slovakian. The mother and the father were both from Slovakia. They had 10 children. The father and the eldest son came to England in December 2009. The mother followed in March 2010, with 7 of their children. The LA had concerns about the care being provided to the children, and the care proceedings were commenced in August 2010. The LA sought: care order for four of the children; placement order for two of them; and supervision order for the eldest, L. The English court exercised jurisdiction under Article 8 of Brussels IIa. The parents sought return of four children. Alternatively, they made a request for placement of the children in state care in Slovakia under Article 56. Mrs Justice Theis DBE held: “59 Having considered the welfare checklist and balancing all the relevant considerations I am satisfied that the only orders that will meet the welfare needs of the children are care orders. 60 In relation to L there is very little dispute as to the type of order if I find the threshold satisfied, which I do. I am satisfied that a supervision order meets his welfare needs. It will ensure he remains living with his parents, which accords with his wishes. It will ensure he retains an allocated social worker, at least during the currency of the supervision order. It will help provide a structure to support him in his educational and emotional needs. Finally, it will enable him to access support, independent of his parents. 61 I have considered carefully the parents proposals for the children to be placed in the Slovak Republic. I note this has the support of the Slovakian Central Authority. The court is extremely grateful for all the work that has been undertaken by the Central Authority in setting out what would be available.” [59-61]