FN v AM

FN v AM

The English court retains jurisdiction to make substantive orders regarding KA because the application was made when KA was habitually resident in England and Wales, and the orders sought fall within s.1(1)(d) of the Family Law Act 1986. The court’s jurisdiction is not lost by KA’s subsequent residence in country Q,...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: FN; Respondent: AM
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Inherent Jurisdiction (wardship) Application / Final Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Orders granted as sought by the applicant, with time allowed for parental negotiation.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Habitual Residence, Child Custody, Travel Ban, Enforcement of Foreign Orders
Family Law International Child Law Jurisdiction Habitual Residence Child Custody Travel Ban Enforcement of Foreign Orders

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FN

Applicant

AM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Inherent Jurisdiction (wardship) Application / Final Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the English court retain jurisdiction over KA given his current residence in country Q?
  2. 2 Should the travel ban imposed by the Shari’a court in country Q be lifted to allow KA’s return to the UK?
  3. 3 What orders are appropriate to secure KA’s welfare and parental contact given the cross-jurisdictional circumstances?

Ratio Decidendi

The English court retains jurisdiction to make substantive orders regarding KA because the application was made when KA was habitually resident in England and Wales, and the orders sought fall within s.1(1)(d) of the Family Law Act 1986. The court’s jurisdiction is not lost by KA’s subsequent residence in country Q, a non-Contracting State under the 1996 Hague Convention. The father’s actions prevented KA’s return, and the court must make orders to facilitate KA’s welfare and parental contact.

Court Disposition

Orders granted as sought by the applicant, with time allowed for parental negotiation.

Orders

  • KA to continue to reside with the mother.
  • Father required to secure lifting of the travel ban by 30 June 2025.