Kent CC v C & Ors [2016] EWFC 72 (25 May 2016)

Kent CC v C & Ors [2016] EWFC 72 (25 May 2016)

The English court lacked substantive jurisdiction as the children were not habitually resident in England at the time proceedings were issued. However, the court exercised its power under Article 20 BIIR to make interim protective orders, as there were reasonable grounds to believe the children had suffered and were at risk of significant harm from both parents. The children were to remain in foster care under interim care orders until arrangements for their return to Slovakia could be made.

Citation
[2016] EWFC 72
Parties
Applicant: Kent CC; 1st Respondent: C; 2nd Respondent: D; 3rd & 4th Respondents: A and B (by their Children's Guardian, Ms Elaine Mitchell)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings / Jurisdictional Hearing and Interim Protective Orders
Outcome
Interim care orders continued under Article 20 BIIR; proceedings in England to be limited to protective measures pending transfer to Slovakia.
Legal Topics
Habitual Residence, Jurisdiction Under Brussels II Revised (biir), Interim Care Orders, Significant Harm, Protective Measures Under Article 20 BIIR
Family Law International Child Protection Habitual Residence Jurisdiction Under Brussels II Revised (biir) Interim Care Orders Significant Harm Protective Measures Under Article 20 BIIR

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kent CC

Applicant

C

1st Respondent

D

2nd Respondent

A and B (by their Children's Guardian, Ms Elaine Mitchell)

3rd & 4th Respondents

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings / Jurisdictional Hearing and Interim Protective Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction under BIIR to make substantive orders regarding the children
  2. 2 Whether interim protective measures should be made under Article 20 BIIR
  3. 3 Whether the threshold for interim care orders under s.38 Children Act 1989 is met

Ratio Decidendi

The English court lacked substantive jurisdiction as the children were not habitually resident in England at the time proceedings were issued. However, the court exercised its power under Article 20 BIIR to make interim protective orders, as there were reasonable grounds to believe the children had suffered and were at risk of significant harm from both parents. The children were to remain in foster care under interim care orders until arrangements for their return to Slovakia could be made.

Court Disposition

Interim care orders continued under Article 20 BIIR; proceedings in England to be limited to protective measures pending transfer to Slovakia.

Orders

  • Children A and B to remain in interim care of the local authority and placed with foster carers.
  • Directions for liaison with Slovakian authorities to arrange the children's return.