EUPillar X v Y, Z (by his Children’s Guardian) [2014] EWHC 2147 (Fam)

Summary

The proceedings were in respect of a child, Z, who was born in England on 24th September 2000. The parents started their relationship in 1996. There was a breakdown in their relationship in 2002. Since then the parties had engaged in a number of legal disputes. Originally there had been a shared parental order, but after the mother nearly attacked the father with a knife, the child was moved to “a secret and secure destination where he would be able to move around freely in the knowledge that his mother could not possibly be in the vicinity.” [8] The proceedings were inter alia concerned with re-introduction of a direct contact at mother’s request. In so far as the child was habitually resident in Switzerland, the English court had to consider whether it had jurisdiction. The English courts assumed jurisdiction under Article 12(3) of Brussels IIa. Mr Justice Baker held: “55 […] In my judgment, Hedley J was entirely justified in proroguing jurisdiction and I propose to prorogue jurisdiction again. The criteria in Article 12.3 are satisfied. It is true that Z is now habitually resident in Switzerland but, as Baroness Hale confirmed in Re I , this does not prevent prorogation of jurisdiction in this country. Z continues to have a substantial connection with this country, not least because his mother lives here. All parties have given their unequivocal acceptance to the jurisdiction at the outset of the proceedings in the manner set out above. Once given, that acceptance cannot be withdrawn for the reasons explained by Baroness Hale in Re I at para.23. 56 Finally, and most importantly, I find that it is in Z's best interests for this court to retain jurisdiction for the reasons identified by Mr. Geekie and Ms. Fottrell. This court is fully acquainted with the history. Much of the information relevant to any future issues that may arise will be located in and derived from this country. It would be contrary to Z's interests to be exposed to a new range of professionals and a new court process. In particular, I accept the submission, having considered all the evidence, that the disclosure of the address of the district court in Switzerland will increase the risk of Z's location being discovered by the mother and, of equal importance, will increase his fear that his location would be discovered. That would be a severe setback to a boy who has now begun to recover from his unhappy experiences in the mother's care.” [55-56]