PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

In the matter of D (Habitual residence) 2014 WL 7254970

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, D, were initiated by the Local Authority. The child was a Lithuanian national; she was born in January 2003. The mother and the child came to England in May 2014. On 19th September 2014, the child was found sleeping rough by the police. The Local Authority got involved, placing her in foster care. On 5th December 2014, the Local Authority commenced care proceedings. The court had to determine whether it had jurisdiction; and, if yes, the English court had to consider whether to make a request for transfer of the proceedings to Lithuania under Article 15. HHJ Atkinson held that the English court was not competent as the child was still habitually resident in Lithuania. It was stated that: “34 […] D retains her family links in Lithuania and of course she wishes to return there. As I have already found, her mother has done little to integrate D into social and family life in the UK in the 7 months she has been here. Whilst she has been away from Lithuania for 7 months that time period does not of itself necessarily speak of a cessation of her social and family links with Lithuania. Though there may be no evidence of direct contact with Lithuania there is nevertheless no doubt that her family links there remain intact and further evidence of her social integration into that member state is provided, it seems to me in the very clear and active position adopted by the Lithuanian authorities in her regard. In keeping with that should she return to Lithuania I understand that she would have automatic access to the education, health, social and therapeutic services she accessed previously. 35 All things considered I am satisfied that D continues to be habitually resident in Lithuania. That being the case, this court has no jurisdiction to deal with this matter and pursuant to Article 17 of BIIR, I must declare that to be so.” [34]