EUPillar London Borough of Barking v Ms. C, Mr. M, A [2014] EWHC 2472 (Fam)

Summary

The care proceedings were in respect of a child, A, who was born in England on 13th September 2013. The parents, who were of Romanian origin, were unmarried. The mother had problems in caring for the child. The LA was involved shortly after the child’s birth, commencing care proceedings. The proceedings exceeded the statutory limit of 26 weeks. The level of delay was explained by the fact the case had an international element. The need for considering a transfer request under Article 15 was identified when the proceedings were well advanced. A transfer request was supported by the father. It was argued by the father that: “8 […]it is for the Romanian authorities to assess the sufficiency of his potential care for A, particularly bearing in mind, as the President stressed in Re E (A Child) [2014] EWHC 6 (Fam), that this Court and our institutions must guard against applying our cultural norms, our expectations, or indeed our remedies, in deciding on solutions for a child of a different culture where different norms and expectations may apply.” [8] Mrs Justice Parker decided to make a transfer request, noting that: “21 The balance lies overwhelmingly in favour of this being a Romanian case, both in respect of Romania being better placed and the child's best interests. The worst prospect for A would be to get to the stage, foreseeable, if not necessarily likely, whereby, if the father fails his assessment, adoption is put forward as the English solution, and the Romanian authorities then make a request for repatriation. If there is to be a move for A, it must take place, both in terms of jurisdiction and physically, at the earliest stage. 22 The Guardian would like to make a request of Romania that A stay in his present foster placement whilst the case is determined but that also must be a matter for the Romanian authorities. As Mr. Justice Moylan remarked in the Leicester case, the longer a child stays in a particular placement, the more difficult it is to dislodge him. It is difficult to say whether a move from an established foster placement to another temporary placement now or fairly soon, or to be removed in three to six months time potentially to a permanent placement in three or six months' time, would be a worse outcome for A. 23 Those considerations have led to my decision that a request for transfer should be made now. It seems quite possible, if not likely, that, once a formal request is made, the Romanian authorities will be able to communicate a clear decision, whereas that is more difficult for them on a theoretical basis now. That seems to be the growing experience of Article 15 decisions. If Romania does not accept the request, the case will be on track, albeit much delayed, for a resolution of the proceedings here, and possibly, if all goes well, consensually.” [21-23]