Re S (A Child: Article 9 transfer to Norway)

Re S (A Child: Article 9 transfer to Norway)

The court accepted Norway’s request to transfer jurisdiction under Article 9 of the 1996 Hague Convention because M’s imminent return to Norway fundamentally alters her circumstances, making Norway better placed to assess her parenting and S’s best interests. The negative impact on M’s contact with S if proceedings...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: A Local Authority; First Respondent: M; Second Respondent: F; Third Respondent: S (a child acting by her Guardian)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Family Law – Child Protection / Care Proceedings / Judgment on Article 9 Hague Convention Transfer Request
Outcome
Jurisdiction transferred to Norway under Article 9 of the 1996 Hague Convention
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Transfer Under Hague Convention 1996, Best Interests of the Child, Comity, Care Proceedings, Habitual Residence
Family Law International Child Law Jurisdiction Transfer Under Hague Convention 1996 Best Interests of the Child Comity Care Proceedings Habitual Residence

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

Applicant

M

First Respondent

F

Second Respondent

S (a child acting by her Guardian)

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law – Child Protection / Care Proceedings / Judgment on Article 9 Hague Convention Transfer Request

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to accept Norway's request under Article 9 of the 1996 Hague Convention to transfer jurisdiction over child S from England and Wales to Norway
  2. 2 Whether transfer is in S’s best interests

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted Norway’s request to transfer jurisdiction under Article 9 of the 1996 Hague Convention because M’s imminent return to Norway fundamentally alters her circumstances, making Norway better placed to assess her parenting and S’s best interests. The negative impact on M’s contact with S if proceedings remained in England, and the need for an updated assessment in Norway, outweighed the harm from delay. Comity requires both jurisdictions be treated as equally competent. The transfer is in S’s best interests.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction transferred to Norway under Article 9 of the 1996 Hague Convention

Orders

  • Jurisdiction over child S transferred to Norway
  • Counsel to draft the order for transfer