H (Jurisdiction), Re

H (Jurisdiction), Re

The court exercised its protective powers because the child's welfare required it; his whereabouts and circumstances were unknown, and the mother could not seek remedies in Afghanistan without this information. The absence of precedent reflected the unusual facts and did not justify inaction.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: HH; Respondent: SH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Wardship / Judgment
Outcome
Order granted
Legal Topics
Inherent Jurisdiction, Habitual Residence, Child Welfare, International Comity
Family Law Child Protection Jurisdiction Inherent Jurisdiction Habitual Residence Child Welfare International Comity

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HH

Applicant

SH

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Wardship / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to make protective orders for a British child not habitually resident in England
  2. 2 Whether the circumstances justify the exercise of jurisdiction based on nationality alone

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its protective powers because the child's welfare required it; his whereabouts and circumstances were unknown, and the mother could not seek remedies in Afghanistan without this information. The absence of precedent reflected the unusual facts and did not justify inaction.

Court Disposition

Order granted

Orders

  • The father is directed to provide information about the child's whereabouts and circumstances within 14 days.
  • The matter will be restored for further consideration once the information is provided.