EE & ME (Children) (Habitual Residence)

EE & ME (Children) (Habitual Residence)

By September 2015, the children were habitually resident in England and Wales; their removal to Latvia was intended to be temporary and the mother intended their return. At the date of the father's application, the children remained habitually resident in England, so the English court has jurisdiction under Article 8 of Brussels IIA. Alternatively, the removal was without the father's consent, so jurisdiction is also established under Article 10.

Parties
Applicant: KE; Respondent: SS-E
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Children Act 1989 Application (jurisdiction) / Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Jurisdiction
Outcome
English court has jurisdiction under Article 8 (and alternatively Article 10) of Brussels IIA.
Legal Topics
Habitual Residence, Jurisdiction Under Brussels IIA, Wrongful Removal of Children, Parental Responsibility, Child Abduction
Family Law Private International Law Habitual Residence Jurisdiction Under Brussels IIA Wrongful Removal of Children Parental Responsibility Child Abduction

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KE

Applicant

SS-E

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Children Act 1989 Application (jurisdiction) / Judgment on Preliminary Issue of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction under Article 8 or Article 10 of Brussels IIA in respect of two children removed to Latvia
  2. 2 Whether the children were habitually resident in England at the relevant date
  3. 3 Whether the removal to Latvia was wrongful and without the father's consent

Ratio Decidendi

By September 2015, the children were habitually resident in England and Wales; their removal to Latvia was intended to be temporary and the mother intended their return. At the date of the father's application, the children remained habitually resident in England, so the English court has jurisdiction under Article 8 of Brussels IIA. Alternatively, the removal was without the father's consent, so jurisdiction is also established under Article 10.

Court Disposition

English court has jurisdiction under Article 8 (and alternatively Article 10) of Brussels IIA.