EUPillar Norfolk County Council v VE and others [2015] EWFC 30 (Fam)

Summary

The proceedings were in respect of a child, V. The child was born in early 2009. The parents were both Lithuanian. The child was living with her mother. The father saw the child only twice, arguably. The mother and the child came to England in 2012. The Local Authority became involved in January 2014, putting the child in foster care, with the mother’s consent. The care proceedings were initiated in August 2014. It was common ground that the English court had jurisdiction under Article 8 of Brussels IIa. The English considered putting the child into the foster care of a Lithuania family. The English court further considered making a transfer request to the Lithuanian courts, but the Lithuanian authorities did indicate that the English court was well placed to deal with the case in so far as the Lithuanian family was considered appropriate by the English social workers. The English court did decide accordingly. Mr Justice Theis made the following observations: “63 There are three aspects of this case that have caused this court great concern. (1) There was a wholly unacceptable delay by this Local Authority in issuing proceedings. V was placed with foster carers in January pursuant to section 20 Children Act 1989 and proceedings were not issued until August 2014. No justification has been given for that delay. That delay was detrimental to V's welfare, as it delayed decisions being made about her future care. (2) There was an unacceptable delay by the court to consider the position under Article 15 . The obligation to consider this issue is not only on the parties but it is also on the court. As Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division, said in Nottingham City Council v LM [2014] EWCA Civ 152 ‘Judges must be astute to raise these points even if they have been overlooked by the parties' (paragraph 57). In that case, as he did in Re E [2014] EWHC 6 (Fam) , he made clear the need for courts to record in its orders the basis upon which, in accordance with Article 15 , it either has or, as the case may be, has not decided to exercise its powers under Article 15 . (3) The basis upon which the independent social worker went to conduct assessments in Lithuania is far from clear. On the information this court has that was done without the knowledge of the Central Authority here. In response to an email sent to the Lithuanian Central Authority on 13 October 2014 notifying them of the intention to send an independent social worker to undertake assessments of V's relatives the Lithuanian Central Authority (State Child Rights Protection and Adoption Service under the Ministry of Social Security and Labour) emailed the Local Authority on 15 October 2014 and informed them that they would not co-operate with the social workers from abroad. The practice of sending social workers from here to conduct assessments in other member states requires very careful consideration, and should only usually be considered in circumstances where there is express agreement from the other member state.” [63]