PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham v SS (By her Guardian, Trudy Jordan) [2014] EWHC 3338, (Fam)

Details of the court

England and Wales, First Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

15 October 2014

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The care proceedings were concerned with a 15-year old child, SS. She was a Roma from Romania. The child came to England in December 2012. Before that she had live in Spain with her mother, and previously in Romania with her parental grandmother. It was noted that she had been “sold” by her mother to a young Roma, DW. They both came to England. The child, SS, was forced to steal here. She escaped from DW, starting living with another young man in England. SS was cautioned by the police for “aggressive begging” in 2013. The child was subsequently arrested in November 2013, and charged for being involved in stealing mobile phones. SS escaped from her foster placement. She was finally detained by the Transport Police in April 2014 when the care proceedings were initiated. The child subsequently settled well in her foster placement. An important question was whether the English court had jurisdiction. It was held that it did. Mr Justice Cobb held: “37 The fact that SS's life was in many respects unconventional, occasionally lawless and generally unstructured did not mean that she had not in her own way – and to a significant degree – integrated into that society in which she lived in England. That someone lives on the fringes of society (as SS had done here in the 14 months or so prior to April 2014) does not mean, in my judgment, that they are not members of that society. Nor does it therefore mean that they cannot acquire habitual residence in the country in which they have settled and made their home. 38 For the avoidance of doubt, I should add that had I reached the conclusion on the facts that SS was not habitually resident in England & Wales as at 29 April 2014, I would have nonetheless declared that the Courts of England and Wales could assume jurisdiction in respect of her under Article 13 BIIR . […]” [37-38]