PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

Kent County Council v C, G, AG (through his Children’s Guardian Mrs Kenny-Robb [2014] EWHC 604 (Fam)

Details of the court

England and Wales, First Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

06 February 2014

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The proceedings were in respect of a child who was born in Latvia in June 2008. The parents were both from Latvia. The parties got married in 2007 in Latvia. However, they separated. The mother traveled to England where she worked for different periods of time till 2012. The mother returned back in Latvia in September 2012, and removed the child from the care of the father. The divorce proceedings were initiated by the mother then, and the final judgment made in November 2012. The child remained with the mother. The father had contact. The mother and the child came to England in January 2013. On 15th April 2013, a referral was made by the child’s school to the LA. The reason being that the child had bruises on both sides of his face. The care proceedings were initiated; an interim foster care order made. In May 2013, the father was informed that the child was in foster care in England. A request for summary return was made by the father on 15th January 2013, arguing that the child was habitually resident in Latvia. The English High Court ruled accordingly. Mrs Justice Theis DBE held: “54 In those circumstances in relation to the Hague application, the court does not need to go on to consider its discretion as to whether the court should order a return as the relevant defences have not been established. 55 I turn, very briefly, to the question of habitual residence, although in the light of my decision regarding The Hague Convention application it is not strictly necessary. However, it may provide helpful clarity. Jurisdiction to determine the Local Authority's care application issued in April of last year is regulated by Article 8 of B2R ; it is dependent on habitual residence being established. […] […] “57 […] I do not consider the father has acquiesced to the retention by the mother of A here and in the same way I do not consider he has acquiesced to A's habitual residence here and in those circumstances Article 10 B2R applies and A's habitual residence remains in Latvia. 58 So for those very brief reasons I am clear that at the time the proceedings were commenced in this jurisdiction A's habitual residence was in Latvia and so this court, other than for the limited purposes under Article 20 B2R , does not have jurisdiction to determine the care proceedings.” [54, 55, 57 and 58]