DN GN GRN CMN (Children), Re (No. 1)

DN GN GRN CMN (Children), Re (No. 1)

The three younger children remained habitually resident in England and Wales at the time proceedings were commenced, as evidenced by their continued integration in English housing, schooling, and health care, lack of permanent relocation to France, and the parents' actions and statements. Therefore, the English court has jurisdiction. The threshold for significant harm is met for all children due to the parents' convictions for harm to DN and their failure to accept responsibility or show remorse, placing the younger children at risk.

Parties
Applicant: A Local Authority; 1st Respondent (mother): MF; 2nd Respondent (mother of Dn): CY; 3rd Respondent (father): RN; 4th 7th Respondents (children's Guardian): N
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings / Jurisdictional Determination (habitual Residence) and Threshold Findings
Outcome
Jurisdiction confirmed; threshold for significant harm met for all children.
Legal Topics
Habitual Residence, Jurisdiction Under Brussels II Revised (biir), Significant Harm Threshold, Care Orders, Child Welfare
Family Law Child Protection International Private Law Habitual Residence Jurisdiction Under Brussels II Revised (biir) Significant Harm Threshold Care Orders Child Welfare

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

Applicant

MF

1st Respondent (mother)

CY

2nd Respondent (mother of Dn)

RN

3rd Respondent (father)

N

4th 7th Respondents (children's Guardian)

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings / Jurisdictional Determination (habitual Residence) and Threshold Findings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the three younger children based on habitual residence at the time proceedings were issued
  2. 2 Whether the threshold for significant harm is met for all children

Ratio Decidendi

The three younger children remained habitually resident in England and Wales at the time proceedings were commenced, as evidenced by their continued integration in English housing, schooling, and health care, lack of permanent relocation to France, and the parents' actions and statements. Therefore, the English court has jurisdiction. The threshold for significant harm is met for all children due to the parents' convictions for harm to DN and their failure to accept responsibility or show remorse, placing the younger children at risk.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction confirmed; threshold for significant harm met for all children.

Orders

  • The English court has jurisdiction to determine the applications for all four children.
  • Findings made that the threshold criteria under the Children Act 1989 are established in relation to all children.