AG and AB (Children)
The children were not habitually resident in England and Wales at the relevant date; the judge applied the correct legal principles and was entitled to find habitual residence in Canada. The court had residual jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1986, but the discharge of the prohibited steps order was correct given the circumstances and ongoing proceedings in Canada.
- Parties
- Appellant: FA; Respondent: JR
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 28 February 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Habitual Residence, Jurisdiction, Child Arrangements, Prohibited Steps Order, Brussels IIA, Family Law Act 1986, Children Act 1989
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
FA
Appellant
JR
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the children were habitually resident in England and Wales at the relevant date
- 2 Whether the English court had jurisdiction to determine the father's application under the Children Act 1989
- 3 Interpretation of Article 13 of Brussels IIA and s.2(1)(b) of the Family Law Act 1986
Ratio Decidendi
The children were not habitually resident in England and Wales at the relevant date; the judge applied the correct legal principles and was entitled to find habitual residence in Canada. The court had residual jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1986, but the discharge of the prohibited steps order was correct given the circumstances and ongoing proceedings in Canada.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Discharge of prohibited steps order upheld
- No substantive order made under s.8 of the Children Act 1989
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment