Summary
The care proceedings were in respect of a child who was born in April 2008. The mother was a Latvian national, who came to live in England in January 2008. On 4th September 2009, there was an incident and the police was involved. Another incident was recorded on 5th March 2010. As a result, the child was placed in police protection. In May 2010, the mother made a request for the child to return in her care. In June 2011, the LA sought a care order as well as a placement order. The LA applications were granted. The mother’s appeals were dismissed on 1st May 2013. A contract application was made by the mother on 17th April 2013. The latter application was dismissed in June 2013.
In October 2014, the mother made an application for a transfer of the proceedings to Latvia under Article 15 of Brussels IIa. Her application was dismissed, and so too was her appeal. In the context of the mother’s application under Article 15, Mr Justice Moylan, sitting at the English High Court, held:
“109 In coming to the conclusion that Article 15 does not apply, I have taken fully into accounts the points raised by the mother and by the Latvian Central Authority. I have to deal with the case as it is now, not as it might be in the future. Simply stated, BIIa does not apply to these proceedings, because they are adoption proceedings. The only application to which it might arguably apply is the mother's application for contact. However, it would clearly make no sense to transfer just this application, even if it was otherwise merited, which, for the avoidance of doubt, in my judgment it is not.
110 In my judgment, England is now clearly the more appropriate forum. The courts and state authorities here have been involved with CB and making decisions about her welfare since March 2010. She is now aged 6 1/2. In these circumstances, I can see no basis for concluding that the Latvian Courts would be better placed to make decisions concerning her welfare.” [109-110]