M (Children) (Rev 1)

M (Children) (Rev 1)

The English court cannot enforce a foreign contact order requiring supervision by a government agency if no such agency is willing to supervise and there is no power under domestic law to compel them. The essential elements of the Estonian order (supervision by a competent child welfare authority) could not be enforced in England, and the court could not substitute alternative supervision arrangements or use the inherent jurisdiction to override statutory limits. Enforcement must proceed 'in the same conditions' as a domestic order, which in this case meant there was no practical means of enforcement.

Parties
Appellant: Father; Respondent: Mother; 2nd Respondent: Children (2nd Respondent)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (family Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Foreign Contact Orders, Brussels IIA Regulation, Supervised Child Contact, Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments, Children Act 1989 Powers
Family Law Private International Law Enforcement of Foreign Contact Orders Brussels IIA Regulation Supervised Child Contact Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments Children Act 1989 Powers

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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Father

Appellant

Mother

Respondent

Children (2nd Respondent)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (family Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court can enforce an Estonian interim contact order requiring supervision by a UK child welfare authority when no such authority is willing to supervise.
  2. 2 Whether the court can compel a local authority or CAFCASS to supervise contact under domestic law or inherent jurisdiction.
  3. 3 Whether alternative supervision arrangements (e.g. Anna Freud Centre, independent social worker) are permissible under the Regulation.

Ratio Decidendi

The English court cannot enforce a foreign contact order requiring supervision by a government agency if no such agency is willing to supervise and there is no power under domestic law to compel them. The essential elements of the Estonian order (supervision by a competent child welfare authority) could not be enforced in England, and the court could not substitute alternative supervision arrangements or use the inherent jurisdiction to override statutory limits. Enforcement must proceed 'in the same conditions' as a domestic order, which in this case meant there was no practical means of enforcement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order for enforcement of the Estonian interim contact order; no order compelling local authority or CAFCASS to supervise contact; no remittal for further exploration of alternative supervision arrangements.