AB (A Child), Re

AB (A Child), Re

The English court has jurisdiction as AB was habitually resident in England when the father issued proceedings. The mother’s removal of AB to Italy was to evade English proceedings. No valid Article 15 application has been made to the English court, and the Italian court cannot transfer jurisdiction. The mother’s refusal to comply with the order for CAFCASS assessment in England and her absence from the hearing justify ordering AB’s return. The child’s best interests require the English court to retain conduct of the case and to restrain publicity and psychological assessment pending further order.

Parties
Applicant: DR; Respondent: MB
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Custody and Jurisdiction / Post Hearing Judgment on Return and Jurisdiction, With Directions and Orders
Outcome
Application for return of AB to England granted; transfer or stay refused; publicity and assessment restrained.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Brussels II Revised Regulation, Habitual Residence, Child Return Orders, Article 15 Transfer, Parental Responsibility, Publicity Injunctions
Family Law International Child Law Jurisdiction Under Brussels II Revised Regulation Habitual Residence Child Return Orders Article 15 Transfer Parental Responsibility Publicity Injunctions

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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DR

Applicant

MB

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Custody and Jurisdiction / Post Hearing Judgment on Return and Jurisdiction, With Directions and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court should order the return of AB to England
  2. 2 Whether proceedings should be stayed or transferred to Italy under Article 15 BIIR
  3. 3 Whether to adjourn the return application pending Article 15 determination

Ratio Decidendi

The English court has jurisdiction as AB was habitually resident in England when the father issued proceedings. The mother’s removal of AB to Italy was to evade English proceedings. No valid Article 15 application has been made to the English court, and the Italian court cannot transfer jurisdiction. The mother’s refusal to comply with the order for CAFCASS assessment in England and her absence from the hearing justify ordering AB’s return. The child’s best interests require the English court to retain conduct of the case and to restrain publicity and psychological assessment pending further order.

Court Disposition

Application for return of AB to England granted; transfer or stay refused; publicity and assessment restrained.

Orders

  • AB to be returned to England within 7 days for CAFCASS assessment and pending further hearing.
  • If the mother returns with AB, they shall live at the former matrimonial home; if not, the father shall collect AB from Milan and live with her in England.