PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

In the matter of T (Habitual residence: Article 15 transfer) 2014 WL 5833852

Details of the court

England and Wales, First Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

11 November 2014

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The care proceedings with regard to a child, T, were initiated by the LA. The child was a Romanian national - 12-year old. The mother and the father were Romanian. The child arrived along with his mother in the UK in October 2013. The mother placed T in the care of his brother, C. T started school in England, but he was not happy here and went back to Romania in May 2014. However, the mother strongly felt that T should go back to England. And, the mother and the child went back to England where they were homeless. The Local Authority got involved. On 22nd September 2014, the LA issued care proceedings. The court had to determine whether it had jurisdiction; and, if yes, it had to decide whether to make a request for transfer of the proceedings to Romania under Article 15. It was held that the English court had jurisdiction under Brussels IIa. However, having considering T’s close relation to Romania, the English judge held that a transfer request under Article 15 was to be made to the Romanian courts. HHJ Atkinson stated that: “46 So it is that I am satisfied that at the point at which care proceedings were issued T was indeed habitually resident in the UK and had been since shortly after he arrived here in October 2013. That habitual residence has continued uninterrupted by his return to Romania in May 2014 for the reasons that I have given. 47 I should add that if I am wrong about that, I would nevertheless found jurisdiction upon an Article 13 basis. That is because I cannot be satisfied that the fleeting return to Romania in May 2014 was sufficient to revive his former habitual residence in that country. However much he wanted to be there he was not there for long and the person holding parental responsibility for him, his mother, did not want him to remain there. In accordance with those wishes she removed him to the UK immediately. He certainly did not reintegrate back into Romanian society; there was barely time for him to unpack.” [46-47]