PIL instrument(s)
Brussels IIa
Case number and/or case name
G, A (Children: Habitual Residence and Article 15 transfer) 2015 WL1651353
Details of the court
England and Wales, First Instance
Articles referred to by the court
Brussels IIa
Article 8
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Article 15
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 3 SubParagraph c
Paragraph 3 SubParagraph d
Paragraph 3 SubParagraph e
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 6
Article 16
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph a
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph b
Date of the judgement
14 April 2015
Appeal history
None
CJEU's case law cited by the court
None
Summary
The proceedings were in respect of two children, G and A. The children were 12-year and 4-year old, respectively. They were born in Lithuania. They had different fathers and other siblings who were all based in Lithuania. The parents were all Lithuanian nationals. The mother and the children came to England in Nov/Dec 2013. On 20th November, G and A were found home alone by the police. LBN issued the care proceedings in February 2015. It was concluded that the English court had jurisdiction under Article 8 of Brussels IIa. Nonetheless, the English court considered that there was a case for making a transfer request to the Lithuanian courts. In this context, HHJ Atkinson held: “48 Accordingly, I have no doubt that from the perspective of evidence gathering and presentation and assessing alternatives for these children, Lithuania is best placed to hear this case. Is a transfer in the best interests of these children? The best interests test in this context is not the same as the welfare test set out in our domestic legislation which governs the decision making with regard to all matters relating to the upbringing of children, but rather a consideration of whether it is in the children's best interests to have the case (or part of it) determined in another jurisdiction. […] 54 It seems to me when decisions regarding the capability of this mother to care for her children and alternative welfare outcomes are so obviously better assessed elsewhere for the reasons set out above then it obviously is in the children's best interests that the matter should be heard in that different jurisdiction.” [48 and 54]

This website is written and maintained by the University of Aberdeen's Research Applications and Data Management Team