C, Re

C, Re

The English court was first seised of substantive proceedings concerning parental responsibility and the child was habitually resident in England at the relevant time. The father acquiesced in the child's removal/retention, and the Belgian court's order did not demonstrate jurisdiction under Brussels II Revised nor did it give the child an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the English court retains jurisdiction and declined to enforce the Belgian order.

Parties
Local Authority: Sunderland City Council; Mother: GC; Father: NC; Child: BKC (child, through Guardian Miss Jolly)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Child Custody and Parental Responsibility / Final Judgment Following Provisional Judgment and Cross Jurisdictional Communications
Outcome
Declined to enforce the Belgian court's order; English court retains and continues to exercise jurisdiction over the child.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Brussels II Revised, Habitual Residence, Child Abduction, Enforcement of Foreign Orders, Lis Pendens, Welfare of the Child
Family Law International Law Child Law Jurisdiction Under Brussels II Revised Habitual Residence Child Abduction Enforcement of Foreign Orders Lis Pendens +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sunderland City Council

Local Authority

GC

Mother

NC

Father

BKC (child, through Guardian Miss Jolly)

Child

Procedural Posture

Child Custody and Parental Responsibility / Final Judgment Following Provisional Judgment and Cross 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 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 substantive proceedings concerning parental responsibility and the child was habitually resident in England at the relevant time. The father acquiesced in the child's removal/retention, and the Belgian court's order did not demonstrate jurisdiction under Brussels II Revised nor did it give the child an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the English court retains jurisdiction and declined to enforce the Belgian order.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The Belgian order for return and custody is not enforced in England.
  • The English court continues to exercise jurisdiction to determine welfare-based orders for the child.