Case number and/or case name
London Borough of Lambeth v JO, KP, SE, DD, SV, JP, Tr E, Ty E (By their Children’s Guardian) [2014] EWHC 3597 (Fam)
Details of the court
England and Wales, First Instance
Articles referred to by the court
Brussels IIa
Article 2
Paragraph 11
SubParagraph a
Paragraph 11
SubParagraph b
Article 10
Paragraph a
Paragraph b
SubParagraph i
Paragraph b
SubParagraph ii
Paragraph b
SubParagraph iii
Paragraph b
SubParagraph iv
Article 12
Paragraph 1
SubParagraph a
Paragraph 1
SubParagraph b
Paragraph 2
SubParagraph a
Paragraph 2
SubParagraph b
Paragraph 2
SubParagraph c
Paragraph 3
SubParagraph a
Paragraph 3
SubParagraph b
Paragraph 4
Date of the judgement
31 October 2014
CJEU's case law cited by the court
Summary
The care proceedings were concerned with a 4 children. SV was born in March 2012; JP was born in October 2003; TR was born in July 2010; TY was born on 4th March 2014.
The children had the same father, E, but different mothers. D was the mother of TY and TR.
The care proceedings were initiated in March 2014 when it was disclosed by the children that they were physically punished by their parents, D and E.
D and E were from Nigeria. All the children were born in England.
D, who was habitually resident in Nigeria, challenged the jurisdiction of the English court in respect of her children, TR and TY.
The English court dismissed the challenge, exercising jurisdiction under Article 13(1) of Brussels IIa.
Ms Justice Russell held:
“50 There is no jurisdiction under Article 12 . I cannot be satisfied that all parties have accepted jurisdiction. Despite the fact that D did so in May of this year ( as set out above) she had previously expressly indicated that she did not accept the court had jurisdiction and did so again in July. This case is similar to that set out in the judgment of Mr Justice Charles in Re S (Care Jurisdiction) [2009] were the parents, D in particular, have no real option but to participate in the care proceedings once they have been initiated. The clear message from D has always been that she wanted to go to Nigeria with her two daughters.
51 In respect of jurisdiction as I have found that habitual residence in respect of both children cannot be established in the particular circumstances of these children in this case and there is not any jurisdiction under Article 12 . The children are both present in this jurisdiction and have been since the courts were seised of this case and therefore the court has jurisdiction for public law proceedings under Article 13 of the Regulation.” [50-51]