A & A, Re [2016] EWFC B121 (22 August 2016)

The court found that both FA and NA were habitually resident in the UK at the relevant time, based on their integration and expressed wishes, and that their welfare required the making of care orders. The absence of parental planning to remove the children from the UK and their settled life supported the finding of habitual residence and the necessity of care orders.

Citation: [2016] EWFC B121
Parties: Child: FA; Child: NA; Father: AA; Mother: MAb; Applicant: Local Authority; Guardian: Guardian
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 22 August 2016
Procedural Posture: Care Order Proceedings / Final Hearing
Outcome: Care orders granted for both children.
Legal Topics: Care Orders, Jurisdiction, Habitual Residence, Forced Marriage Protection, Parental Responsibility

Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Jurisdiction Habitual Residence Forced Marriage Protection Parental Responsibility

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Child

Father

MAb

Mother

Local Authority

Applicant

Guardian

Procedural Posture

Care Order Proceedings / Final Hearing

Legal Issues

1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to make final care orders for FA and NA
2 Whether FA and NA are habitually resident in the UK
3 Whether care orders should be made for the welfare of the children

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Care orders granted for both children.

Orders

Care orders made for FA and NA in favour of the local authority.
Orders to be relayed to the Kuwaiti Embassy and immigration authorities.