PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

Southampton City Council v A Mother, A Father, IB [2014] EWFC 16

Details of the court

England and Wales, First Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

09 June 2014

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The care proceedings were in respect of a child, I, who was born on 24th August 2005. The child was born in Latvia. The parents and the child came to England in 2007. The child was living in England since then. The child was going to school in England. The father was sentenced, and expelled to Latvia. The mother had mental health difficulties. On 27th February 2014, the LA commenced care proceedings. The English court had jurisdiction because the child was habitually resident in England. A request for the transfer of proceedings to Latvia was made by the mother. The mother’s request was dismissed by the English High Court. Mr Justice Baker: “32 […] conclude that whichever Court conducts these proceedings will require some evidence from the other country which will of course have to be interpreted. It cannot be said that the Latvian Court is better placed to determine all the issues in the case having regard to the range of issues still at large. Furthermore, although I is of course by background and heritage a Latvian child she has been living here for seven years. She is plainly settled here. She speaks good English but little Latvian. In those circumstances I do not consider that it can be said to be in her best interests to transfer this case to Latvia. 33 In this context it is notable that, in his letter dated 24th April, the Chair of the Riga Orphans Court indicated that in his opinion jurisdiction should rest with the English Courts. It is true that he does not there refer at all to Article 15 but, for my part, if he was of the view that an application under Article 15 should be made, I would have expected him to have said so in that letter. 34 I therefore conclude that a request pursuant to Article 15 should not be made in this case because I am not satisfied that the Latvian Court would be better placed to determine the issues arising in this case, nor that transfer would be in I's best interests.” [32-34]