B v C (No 2) (1996 Hague Convention Art 22)

B v C (No 2) (1996 Hague Convention Art 22)

It would be manifestly contrary to public policy, taking into account A's best interests as a primary consideration, to apply Spanish law as designated by Article 16(3) of the 1996 Hague Convention to allow D's parental responsibility for A to subsist in England, where that status was acquired by fraud, D is a stranger to A, and the situation is corrosive of A's identity and welfare. Therefore, Article 22 is engaged and D does not have parental responsibility for A in England and Wales.

Parties
Applicant: B; Respondent: C; Intervener: The Secretary of State for Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Family Law Parental Responsibility / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Application granted; declaration made that D does not have parental responsibility for A in England and Wales.
Legal Topics
Parental Responsibility, Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Public Policy Exception, Children's Rights, Recognition of Foreign Parental Responsibility, Fraud and Identity, Human Rights Act 1998, Children Act 1989, Hague Convention 1996
Family Law Private International Law Human Rights Parental Responsibility Jurisdiction Applicable Law Public Policy Exception Children's Rights +5 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 4 Authorities cited 35 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B

Applicant

C

Respondent

The Secretary of State for Justice

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Family Law Parental Responsibility / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court should terminate parental responsibility conferred by Spanish law in circumstances amounting to fraud and subsisting in England under Article 16(3) of the 1996 Hague Convention.
  2. 2 Whether section 4(2A) of the Children Act 1989 is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 in this context.
  3. 3 Whether the public policy exception under Article 22 of the 1996 Hague Convention applies.

Ratio Decidendi

It would be manifestly contrary to public policy, taking into account A's best interests as a primary consideration, to apply Spanish law as designated by Article 16(3) of the 1996 Hague Convention to allow D's parental responsibility for A to subsist in England, where that status was acquired by fraud, D is a stranger to A, and the situation is corrosive of A's identity and welfare. Therefore, Article 22 is engaged and D does not have parental responsibility for A in England and Wales.

Court Disposition

Application granted; declaration made that D does not have parental responsibility for A in England and Wales.

Orders

  • Declaration that D does not have parental responsibility for A in England and Wales.
  • Request to Spanish authorities for rectification of the Civil Registry to reflect that D is not the father of A.