C (A Child)

C (A Child)

The English court's directions for further welfare proceedings and CAFCASS investigation were insupportable and contrary to comity, as Hungary was the primary jurisdiction for welfare issues after the child's return under the Hague Convention. There was no basis for maintaining English proceedings, which should be dismissed.

Parties
Subject Child: E C (A Child); Appellant: Father; Respondent: Mother
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Family Law Appeal / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed. English proceedings dismissed.
Legal Topics
Hague Convention 1980, Brussels II Revised Regulation, Jurisdiction in Child Welfare, Comity, Habitual Residence

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E C (A Child)

Subject Child

Father

Appellant

Mother

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Appeal / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the English court should retain jurisdiction over welfare proceedings after ordering the child's return under the Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether directions for welfare investigation in England were appropriate given Hungary's primary jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The English court's directions for further welfare proceedings and CAFCASS investigation were insupportable and contrary to comity, as Hungary was the primary jurisdiction for welfare issues after the child's return under the Hague Convention. There was no basis for maintaining English proceedings, which should be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. English proceedings dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted.
  • Appeal allowed.