Case number and/or case name
Bristol City Council v AA, HA (by his children’s guardian) [2014] EWHC 1022 (Fam)
Summary
The care proceedings were in respect of a child, H, who was born in Lithuania in December 2006. The parents were both Lithuanian citizens.
The mother and the child arrived in England in March 2013.
The school referred the child to the local authority because there were concerns about the mother’s alcohol misuse.
The English court had to consider whether it had jurisdiction, and – if yes – whether to exercise it.
It was held that the jurisdiction could be established under Article 8(1) because the child was habitually resident in England. However, the court relied on Article 15, making a transfer request to the Lithuanian courts. Mr Justice Baker held:
“29 I acknowledge that the mother was to some extent socially isolated, and that she was associating largely with people from a similar background. She had, however, started employment and H had been entered into school to which he returned after the summer holidays. I find, therefore, that there was some degree of integration by the mother and H into the social environment in this country. In these circumstances, given my findings as to the mother's intention to remain here indefinitely, I find, on balance, that H was habitually resident in this country on the date on which these proceedings were started..
30 Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction pursuant to article 8 of Brussels II Revised.
[…]
45 In view of H's close connection with Lithuania, and the fact that all the options for his future are based in that country, and the fact that Lithuania can fairly resolve all issues in these proceedings, I consider that it is manifestly in his interests for this court to make a request under Article 15 with a view to facilitating the transfer of the proceedings to Lithuania as soon as possible.” [29-30 and 45]