C v D (No 2) (2007 Hague Convention)

C v D (No 2) (2007 Hague Convention)

None of the grounds for refusing recognition under Article 22 of the 2007 Hague Convention were established. The English court made no order for child maintenance, so there was no incompatibility. The appellant had notice and opportunity to be heard regarding the US hearing. Allegations of fraud were unsupported by evidence. Recognition was not manifestly incompatible with public policy. The registration of the US child support order was not wrong.

Parties
Appellant: C; Respondent: D
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Family Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal Against Registration of Foreign Maintenance Order
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Registration and Enforcement of Foreign Maintenance Orders, 2007 Hague Convention, Child Support, Jurisdiction, Recognition and Enforcement, Grounds for Refusing Recognition
Family Law Private International Law Registration and Enforcement of Foreign Maintenance Orders 2007 Hague Convention Child Support Jurisdiction Recognition and Enforcement Grounds for Refusing Recognition

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

Parties

C

Appellant

D

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal Against Registration of Foreign Maintenance Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether registration of the US child support order should be refused under Article 22 of the 2007 Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether the US child support order is incompatible with an English decision having the same purpose
  3. 3 Whether the appellant had proper notice and opportunity to be heard

Ratio Decidendi

None of the grounds for refusing recognition under Article 22 of the 2007 Hague Convention were established. The English court made no order for child maintenance, so there was no incompatibility. The appellant had notice and opportunity to be heard regarding the US hearing. Allegations of fraud were unsupported by evidence. Recognition was not manifestly incompatible with public policy. The registration of the US child support order was not wrong.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Registration of the Elbert County District Court child support order upheld
  • No order for costs specified