Y & Anor (1996 Hague Convention: Article 11), Re

Y & Anor (1996 Hague Convention: Article 11), Re

The judge erred in discharging the interim care orders and ending proceedings without a clear factual basis for risk assessment, without proper engagement with the Article 9 process for jurisdictional transfer, and without considering the limits of the English court's powers under the 1996 Hague Convention. The...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Local Authority; First Respondent: Mother; Second Respondent: Father; Third and Fourth Respondents: Children's Guardian (on behalf of Y and E)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal (family/child Protection) / Appeal From Family Court Decision to Discharge Interim Care Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; interim care orders restored; case remitted for further directions.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under 1996 Hague Convention, Interim Care Orders, Habitual Residence, Urgent and Provisional Measures, Article 9 Requests, Risk Assessment in Child Protection
Family Law International Child Protection Private International Law Jurisdiction Under 1996 Hague Convention Interim Care Orders Habitual Residence Urgent and Provisional Measures Article 9 Requests +1 more

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Local Authority

Appellant

Mother

First Respondent

Father

Second Respondent

Children's Guardian (on behalf of Y and E)

Third and Fourth Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal (family/child Protection) / Appeal From Family Court Decision to Discharge Interim Care Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Family Court erred in discharging interim care orders under Article 11 of the 1996 Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether the English court had jurisdiction to make enduring welfare orders or only urgent/provisional measures
  3. 3 Whether the risk to the children was properly assessed in light of incomplete factual findings and ongoing therapy

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in discharging the interim care orders and ending proceedings without a clear factual basis for risk assessment, without proper engagement with the Article 9 process for jurisdictional transfer, and without considering the limits of the English court's powers under the 1996 Hague Convention. The absence of a clear narrative about the child's injury and the lack of a substantive response from the Spanish authorities meant the risks to the children were not properly managed. The appeal was allowed, the interim care orders restored, and the case remitted for further directions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; interim care orders restored; case remitted for further directions.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 1 and 8 of the 24 May 2023 order set aside; interim care orders under Article 11 restored.
  • Care proceedings remain stayed as per 18 October 2022 order.