PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

Re A, B (Children: Brussels II Revised: Article 15) [2014] EWFC 40

Details of the court

England and Wales, First Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

23 October 2014

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The care proceedings were in respect of two children who were Czech nationals. The mother and the maternal grandparents moved to the UK in 2011. In 2013, the Local Authority got involved as incidents of domestic violence were reported. In August 2013, the children became subject of child protection plans. The care proceedings commenced in April 2014. The English court had jurisdiction over the care proceedings under Article 8 of Brussels IIa. An application, requesting transfer of the English proceedings to the Czech Republic, was made by the mother. The application was granted by the English court. Mrs Justice Pauffley held: “57 The overwhelming likelihood is that the proceedings, wherever they occur, will centre upon assessments of the available long term possibilities for the children. On the basis of the material thus far available, the maternal great grandmother and her partner will be at the forefront either as a couple on their own or as supporters for the mother. Any assessment undertaken on behalf of the local authority here would suffer from at least two disadvantages. First it would be burdensome to transmit questions in as complete a form as the authority would wish, particularly if there were to be a need for follow up inquiries and further information. Second, the international procedures for obtaining such assessments may fail to achieve their stated aim to the satisfaction of the authority and possibly also the court. […] 72 The question is whether transfer will be in the children's best interests not what outcome – either in the short or long term – will best serve their welfare needs. Inextricably linked as it is with the question as to whether the Czech courts would be ‘better placed’ to hear the case, and for the reasons given I find it straightforward to respond to the third question in the affirmative.” [57-72]