C, Re [2012] EWHC 907 (Fam) (22 March 2012)

C, Re [2012] EWHC 907 (Fam) (22 March 2012)

The English court was first seised of proceedings relating to parental responsibility and had jurisdiction under Articles 8 and 12(3) of Brussels II Revised, as the child was habitually resident in England and the father had accepted the jurisdiction by applying for residence and contact orders. The Belgian court was second seised and its order did not demonstrate clear substantive jurisdiction or compliance with Article 42 requirements. Therefore, the English court declined to enforce the Belgian order and retained jurisdiction to make welfare decisions for the child.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 907 (Fam)
Parties
Father: NC; Mother: GC; Child: BKC; Local Authority: Sunderland City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Custody and International Abduction / Final Judgment Following Provisional Judgment and Inter Jurisdictional Communications
Outcome
Application to enforce Belgian court's order refused; English court retains and continues to exercise jurisdiction over the child.
Legal Topics
Child Custody, International Child Abduction, Jurisdiction Under Brussels II Revised, Habitual Residence, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Lis Pendens
Family Law Private International Law Child Custody International Child Abduction Jurisdiction Under Brussels II Revised Habitual Residence Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Lis Pendens

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NC

Father

GC

Mother

BKC

Child

Sunderland City Council

Local Authority

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Custody and International Abduction / Final Judgment Following Provisional Judgment and Inter Jurisdictional Communications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court or Belgian court has jurisdiction over the child BKC under Brussels II Revised
  2. 2 Whether the Belgian court's order for return and custody should be enforced in England
  3. 3 Whether the child was habitually resident in England or Belgium at relevant times

Ratio Decidendi

The English court was first seised of proceedings relating to parental responsibility and had jurisdiction under Articles 8 and 12(3) of Brussels II Revised, as the child was habitually resident in England and the father had accepted the jurisdiction by applying for residence and contact orders. The Belgian court was second seised and its order did not demonstrate clear substantive jurisdiction or compliance with Article 42 requirements. Therefore, the English court declined to enforce the Belgian order and retained jurisdiction to make welfare decisions for the child.

Court Disposition

Application to enforce Belgian court's order refused; English court retains and continues to exercise jurisdiction over the child.

Orders

  • Declined to enforce the Belgian court's order for return and custody of the child.
  • Confirmed English court's jurisdiction to make welfare-based decisions for the child.